I couldn’t disagree more.

Now, more than ever, the world needs the Jedi.

I recall a piece in a student paper around the time of the last census, by someone who had rung up the relevant authorities posing as Yoda – “But Jedi actually my religion is”; “Not very good my English is: apologise I”. The census people were somewhat baffled.

Why don’t we start a campaign to demand Jedi representation in the Lords, if they’re more numerous here than groups whose clergy are to be given seats?

Come back from the Dark Side, Adam ..

Clearly the force is not with this one.

Sounds like a bad argument ill put, to me.

You said:

“By choosing to be officially registered as a Jedi, the true number of non-religious Britain’s was fudged, and this allowed the continued justification of religious influence on policy making. We can’t afford this same mistake again.”

Talk some sense. The census did not “[allow] the continued justification of religious influence on policy making” (which is a bloody terrible sentence if I may say so). I suspect the election of plenty of headbanging Christians is its own justification. From Ruth Kelly to Edward Leigh to Iris Robinson, these people were all elected. Their influence on policy was not justified on the basis of the census. Individual conscience and the “rights” narrative were their justification for letting their faith influence their judgment on policy.

However many Jedi there are (and I hope there are lots), this will not change. Nor will a census accurately reflecting the number of unbelievers in our blessedly irreligious society remove justification for having Anglican bishops in the House of Lords. At the moment, no justification is provided, that I’ve ever heard, except for tradition – and that got blown out of the water with the Commons’ vote to have a wholly elected second chamber.

Lastly, the 2001 census data was not one of the key justifications for the increasing number of faith schools promulgated by the New Labour (and now Tory-Lapdog) governments. I’m sure someone somewhere pointed to it and said, “Look, we’re a majority” – but that person is an idiot unlikely to get a hearing outside of the more looney readers of the Daily Mail. I suspect that “choice” is the argument you’ll want to be refuting in this context.

In short, I’ll declare myself a Jedi if I want to and it’ll have no effect on anything, so bugger off.

@2

“Why don’t we start a campaign to demand Jedi representation in the Lords, if they’re more numerous here than groups whose clergy are to be given seats?”

Now THAT is a plan.

What is a tad more amazing is the number of people who tick “Christian” when they don’t really mean it.

Nonsense, this is.

Office fo National Statistics classes Jedi Knights as “No Religion” does:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954

This tedious killjoyism safely ignore everyone can.

Like Yoda said, this article has no basis in fact.

Besides his link, see also http://s.coop/jedifoi and http://s.coop/jediblog

Next time, do some research.

“Don’t tick Christian just because your mum sometimes goes to church” would have the twin advantages over this piece of a) being helpful b) not being entirely wrong. Given that the whole Jedi thing was debunked on Twitter by Wednesday, I’m surprised to see this appearing here now…

Did the Sith put you up to this?

@ douglas clark

“What is a tad more amazing is the number of people who tick “Christian” when they don’t really mean it.”

That’s because whichever charmer designed the survey decided that the second-largest group in Britain, in terms of religious belief, didn’t warrant having its own box to tick. So a lot of people probably ticked the box that best described them – if you don’t believe in God but went to a CofE school and still go to the local church for the carol service, “Christian” describes you more than anything else on the list. Plus there’s a good chance that most people who refused to specify were non-believers, as they weren’t represented on the survey.

The question was phrased either by a moron or by someone with an agenda, and either way the data is meaningless. Which the government needs to be reminded of every time it tries to use the survey to justify wasting public funds on religious concerns.

I may just write “fuck religion” on my census form. I think if people believe they are ‘Jedi’ then they should be allowed to write that on the form, who are you to tell them otherwise? We don’t live in a monoculture (yet).

I’ve been unimpressed by the laziness of the faith communities. No one’s tried to canvas for my vote at all…

I’ve been unimpressed by the laziness of the faith communities. No one’s tried to canvas for my vote at all…

They’re praying for you instead.

If Jedi is to be proscribed as an improper anwer to the Census question about personal religion, is it acceptable to submit “pagan” or “Wicca” instead, both of which have more ancient historic roots than the official options listed?

Any chance of a Wicca faith school being officially recognised and approved for state funding? If not, why not?

@ Chaise Guevara
“The question was phrased either by a moron or by someone with an agenda, and either way the data is meaningless.”

The Census questions were framed by neither morons nor people with ‘an agenda’ but a thorough scientific research process.

A variety of quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used to test the questions recommended for inclusion in the 2011 Census. Qualitative question testing on religion has primarily been conducted by the data collection methodology (DCM) branch in ONS through a programme of cognitive testing, running since February 2005. Quantitative question testing has been conducted at various intervals since May 2006 using a variety of methodologies.

Measuring ‘religion’ is notoriously complex as there are a number of dimensions to the concept of religion. The key dimensions for survey and census questions about religion are affiliation, practice and belief which are very different from one another. Based on the evidence of a lengthy programme of research and consultation, ONS believes that the most appropriate question for the 2011 Census is one that asks about religious affiliation rather than practice or belief. Several different question wordings have been tested, including:

• What is your religion?

• What is your religion or belief?

• What is your religion, even if not currently practising?

• Do you regard yourself as belonging to a religion?

• Which of these best describes you?

Rigorous testing found that the question ‘what is your religion?’ best meets the requirement of collecting good quality data on religious affiliation within the space constraints of the census questionnaire. The question will also provide comparability between the 2001 and 2011 Censuses.

chaise guevara @ 11

That’s because whichever charmer designed the survey decided that the second-largest group in Britain, in terms of religious belief, didn’t warrant having its own box to tick.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. According to ONS the 2001 census did have a box for the non-religious to tick – indeed, it was the first one…. so not easy to miss:

2001 England and Wales Census
What is your religion?

None
Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations)Buddhist
Hindu
Jewish
Muslim
Sikh
Any other religion (please write in)

In Northern Ireland, the options were even plainer

2001 Northern Ireland Census
Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?

Yes
No

If yes
What religion, religious denomination or body do you belong to?

Roman Catholic
Presbyterian Church in Ireland
Church of Ireland
Methodist Church in Ireland
Other, please write in

If no
What religion, religious denomination or body were you brought up in?

@ Bob B – If you are any kind of Pagan please answer the census question on religion by ticking other and writing in Pagan and then if you have a particular path such as Wicca, Druidry etc then put a dash and write in the path. See http://www.pagandash.org/ for details. If any pagans are reading this please follow suit and do not put your religion as Jedi (unless true of course).

The census question on religion does not attempt to measure belief, which is a good thing as doing so would be unacceptably intrusive, something that wouldn’t just be ethically dubious but which would reduce the accuracy of the information as people would be more likely to skip the question or even the entire census. What it attempts to measure is religious identity, which is different and which can be justified (it’s no more intrusive than asking about ethnicity, occupation or tenure and provides important information about certain minority groups).

I put Jedi not because it is the faith I follow nor the faith I was brought up in, but because it was the religious question on the pre-war German and Dutch censuses that allowed the Nazis to track down the Jews (unsurprisingly the confidentiality promised was ignored by the Nazis). By putting Jedi I sought to be part of a wider protest. Questions of religion and race can have unfortunate side effects if there is a surprise change of government to something more extreme than we’re used to (the Nazis went from nothing to power in barely 10 years). The religious question has little statistical validity as demonstrated last time out when the Christians won hands down and even surprised the church leadership who questioned why they weren’t in the pews on a Sunday. Although very secular in my behaviour I take communion once in a while for old times sake and to reserve myself a nice seat in the afterlife, but I will still be a Jedi on the census if nobody minds.

Thank you to Graham Sharp for that informative response. Also to FlowerPower for highlighting national differences in the questionnaire.

I’ve argued in another thread that the census works well as a head count. Local demographic data can help to identify, say, immigrant hot spots and influence educational and social service provision. It isn’t central planning, because it is driven by expected demand. It’s basic market research.

There are many problems with blunt questions about affiliation or belief. The most basic is that a blunt question may not generate useful data; affiliation with the Roman Catholic church does not necessarily correlate with personal beliefs about abortion, contraception et al.

Skipping other concerns, I’ll jump to whether such crude data should be used for planning or legislation. Dave Semple argues that national stats are tossed away by politicians in favour of religious interests (apologies for oversimplifying the argument). But it would be just as bad if crude data from national stats were used in any way for policy formation.

Whether or not you identify as Jedi on a census form should not be pertinent to your local authority or central government. Government and service provision should be based on needs and desires, established on data of quality. And politics should be about politics, based on facts and philosophy rather than an eye on opinion.

I’m going to put Muslim, or perhaps under “any other religion” – Muslim extremist.

Denny – its not clear by that FOI what the outcome is.

Is Jedi being included as ‘other religions’ or as no religion?

Trofim – planning Lockheed Martin to tell you Muslim Extremist are ? I know that Yoda said “Named must your fear be before banish it you can,” but the census form might not be the best place.

The suggestion in the post that pretend Jedis were reducing the No Religion numbers having been dealt with, perhaps now the outrage that believers in the Force are suffering discrimination in classification is the real issue.

“If Jedi is to be proscribed as an improper anwer to the Census question about personal religion, is it acceptable to submit “pagan” or “Wicca” instead, both of which have more ancient historic roots than the official options listed?”

Wicca has more ancient historic roots than Hinduism? Evidence?

I dunno, I think a good way of pointing out the absurdity of the current upper chamber is calling for Jedi representatives in the House of Lords to speak for hundreds of thousands of otherwise disenfranchised practitioners.

A few Pastafarians might brighten the place up too… in full pirate regalia of course

Please don’t tell me what to write on my census form.

Rumbold

@ 17 FlowerPower (also 16)

“I’m not sure what you mean by this. According to ONS the 2001 census did have a box for the non-religious to tick – indeed, it was the first one…. so not easy to miss”

I stand corrected. But also confused, because I swear there was a story on LC not long ago claiming that the 2001 survey didn’t have a “no religion” box and demanding that this exclusion not happen again. Oh well. Accusations of agendas and moronity are withdrawn!

@ 15 Bob B

“If Jedi is to be proscribed as an improper anwer to the Census question about personal religion, is it acceptable to submit “pagan” or “Wicca” instead, both of which have more ancient historic roots than the official options listed?”

The last survey counted both Pagan and Wicca – these are obviously different from a religion that in nearly all cases people wrote down for a joke. I have to say I share the cynicism about Wicca outdating Hindusim, though.

Rosie -

They’re praying for you instead.

And isn’t it convenient that prayer can be enacted in their snug little living rooms. Honestly, at least Jehovah’s Witnesses put in the legwork.

Anyway, I’m voting Movementarian.

@ 31 BenSix

“Anyway, I’m voting Movementarian.”

What-a-what-now?

What-a-what-now?

Nananananananana leader! Nananananananana leader!

Actually, Discordian would be a better vote.

I have reached the age of 48 years without watching Star Wars.

In my declining days, I avoid references to Star Wars.

I misjudged the title of this post, mistakenly believing that it was about the census.

So what happens if you are Jedi, I’m a lover of Thor, think thunder god are great. but since I will not be bother anyway.

Fuck off! I’ll choose whatever religion I damn well want! What a terrible article.

As Dave Semple was first to point out, I was guilty of a mistake in my article. Quoting the National Statistics website: “No religion includes people who ticked ‘None’ at the religion question plus those who wrote in Jedi Knight, Agnostic, Atheist and Heathen and those who ticked ‘Other’ but did not write in any religion.”

I was unaware of this, which makes my comment, “by option to select ‘other’, and writing in ‘humanist’ in the box, you are splitting the non-religious numbers still further”, factually incorrect. Sorry about that, although this is an edited version of my article, the full version is available on my site.

I’ll be putting Discordian. Hail Eris

I for one support the elevation of Jedi to the House of Lords; I hadn’t thought of this side-effect so I’ll be more likely than ever to write in Jedi!

Judging by current news reports, Satanism seems to have been undergoing another revival in Wales.

Is it permissible to insert “Satanism” in the Census slot for: Other religion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism

I’d opt for Kurt Vonnegut’s Church of God the Utterly Indifferent.

Theologically, its stronger than any other contender.

@ Bob B

Seeing as it’s “permissible” to write in whatever religion you like, what do you think?

You still haven’t backed up your Wicca assertion.

Surely Jedi is no more of a made up religion than Christianity or Muslim? Why arn’t those put in the “no religion” box?

Me, I’m more of a Flying Spaghetti Monster sort of guy!

@42: “You still haven’t backed up your Wicca assertion.”

We know little about the pre-historic origins of Wicca, which preceded recorded history, and I fully admit that the written history of the Wicca revival only goes back a few decades. But then we have scant written historic records about the religion of the Druids, which led to the building of Stonehenge dating back 3000 years BCE and which was a truly impressive technological achievement for its time and place:
http://www.stonehenge.co.uk/about.php

“Archaeologists have solved one of the greatest mysteries of Stonehenge – the exact spot from where its huge stones were quarried. A team has pinpointed the precise place in Wales from where the bluestones were removed in about 2500 BC.” The remaining mystery is how did the Druid priesthood and their followers get the bluestones from that spot in Wales to Stonehenge on Salisbury plain in Wiltshire?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_objectid=15661198&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=archaeologists-figure-out-mystery-of–stonehenge–bluestones-name_page.html

These references to Julius Caesar’s histories are among the few written historic references to the Druids but there can be no doubt about 900 or so other archaeological sites in Britain with remains of stone or wooden circles:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/692163/julius_caesars_description_of_druids.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/big_juli.htm

I’m not in the least religious, and would certainly condemn blocking equality laws. I have to say though, having worked in the sector for a while, that the services the Church provides for the homeless are often much less callous and officious than stautory services. And they run a sizable chunk of the cold weather shelters that stop people freezing to death every winter. And they run them well. And no, generally they don’t proselytize.

Just sayin… don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

@ 44 Bob B

” But then we have scant written historic records about the religion of the Druids, which led to the building of Stonehenge dating back 3000 years BCE and which was a truly impressive technological achievement for its time and place”

I’d agree that it seems the most likely explanation, but do we actually know that Stonehenge was built for religious reasons, or is that an assumption? I ask because I suspect that anything without an immediately obvious practical purpose is in danger of being labelled as religious automatically.

Horribly off-topic, of course.

@ 45 E Slime

“I’m not in the least religious, and would certainly condemn blocking equality laws. I have to say though, having worked in the sector for a while, that the services the Church provides for the homeless are often much less callous and officious than stautory services.”

Sure, but wouldn’t it be better to give state funding to a dedicated homeless charity than hand it to a religious orgnaisation and hope that they use it for humanitarian purposes rather than repairing the church roof or whatever?

@ Chaise Guevara: “I’d agree that it seems the most likely explanation, but do we actually know that Stonehenge was built for religious reasons, or is that an assumption?”

We can only speculate. The Romans – who conquered England from 54 CE onwards, during the reign of the Emperor Claudius – were best placed to leave some written commentary during the subsequent four hundred years in which Britannia was part of the Roman empire but nothing has been found apart from brief mentions of the Druids in historical writings by Julius Caesar, Tacitus and Pliny:
http://www.cambridgescp.com/page.php?p=cla%5Eprose1%5Ep_stage77&view_section=1

The absence of historical references is not surprising in that the heyday of the Druids seems to have been during the millennia between 3000 – 1000 BCE, hundreds of years before the acsendancy of the Roman republic in 509 BCE, let alone the ascendancy of Imperial Rome after the assassination of Caesar in 44 BCE although Caesar was certainly aware of the Druid influence in Gaul during the Roman conquest 55-51 BCE.

The most sophisticated modern hypothesis is that Stonehenge was designed to foretell of lunar eclipses and other observable astronomical events – presumably, to enhance the social standing of the Druid priesthood who could have come out with falsifiable predictions to amaze their followers when celestial deities were often believed to have the powers to determine harvest outcomes – hence also, presumably, the human sacifices by Druids as reported by Caesar:
http://osr.org/en-us/articles/stonehenge-an-astronomical-calculator/

Incredible as it may seem, the alignment of stones at Stonehenge could have been used to predict lunar eclipses:
http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0102-1-stonehenge/eclipses.htm

So a score or more of Bishops showed themselves to dislike gays.

I really don’t see how this relates to the 2001 Census revealing a UK-wide corps of Jedi.

What this piece fails to consider is how a multicultural society is going to harmonise the Jedi and Sith communities.

“So a score or more of Bishops showed themselves to dislike gays.”

Please remind us, what was the position of the Bishops on stoning damsels?

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 22:20-21
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/deu022.htm

And killing adulterers?

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:22-24

I have to say that the Jedi faith is looking an increasingly attractive alternative.

Writing “jedi” for religion is the only reason anyone would fill in a census form no?

@Bob B

Stonehenge is hardly evidence for Wicca having ancient roots. The fact that people in Britain in 2500BC had religious beliefs and built buildings is so trivially obvious that I wonder why you even mentioned it. You could just as easily point out more ancient religious artifacts in India and claim this makes Hinduism older than European paganism even though the religious beliefs of the time wouldn’t have had much to do with modern Hinduism. I have no problems with wicca as a belief system but do you really want to keep pretending that a religion created in the 20th century by a English man is older than a modern religion which actually does have ancient roots.

@53: “The fact that people in Britain in 2500BC had religious beliefs and built buildings is so trivially obvious that I wonder why you even mentioned it.”

IMO the presence and significance of Stonehenge apt to get overlooked and not a lot know about its ancient pre-history and possible applications or the continuing mystery of how those massive bluestones got from Wales to Salisbury plain in Wiltshire with neolithic technology or about some 900 other stone circles in Britain, evidence of a pagan faith with pervasive influence:

“Altogether there are about 900 stone circles in the British Isles: of these, between 30 and 40 are found in the South West, mostly in Devon and Cornwall. Kingston Russell is one of only four in south Dorset, although the area is rich in other monuments of Neolithic and Bronze Age date.

“Stone circles were originally matched by elaborate circles of timber in parts of the country where this was the natural building material. In some places, stone circles appear to have been the permanent markers of former timber circles. ”
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/kingston-russell-stone-circle/history-and-research/

By reports, the Roman conquest of Britannia from 54 CE onwards introduced many new gods and goddesses for local worship – evidently, the Romans liked to hedge their theistic options:
http://www.roman-britain.org/romano-british-gods.htm

“Satanism seems to have been undergoing another revival in Wales.”

Excellent, those years playing Emperor in clubs haven’t been totally wasted then.

@ Bob B

Wicca and new age paganism merely claim acient roots, which is somewhat different to actually having or being able to provide any genuine evidence for those ancient roots (to be fair some are perfectly willing to admit the clear distinction). Any religion worth its salt has to claim ancient roots, there would be far less mystique and credibility as a proper religion in simply claiming it was invented 50 years ago by a bunch of people interested in alternative lifestyles.

That Stonehenge exists is proof of nothing but the fact that someone built it, that there are a few ancient records of something called Druidism and of ancient religious practices in the UK is not at all the same as the fact that some modern groups may lay half-hearted claim to these things without any substantial evidence let alone proof.

But by all means they should stick down what they want. That is there right.

There can only be one religion for me this year and that’s “Big Society” – plenty of blind faith, oodles of miracles and a stretching of resources that makes the feeding of the five thousand look pretty paltry in comparison.

The quality of the responses is a perfect reflection of the quality of this post.

Yes Jedi for me this time too.Ridiculous that house of lords should still have church representation by right.We condem countries who use religious law e.g. sharia law or catholicism, and yet we incluse it in our own set-up but more or less covertly. I certainly strongly object to having jewish faith people in the lords. Never sure if being a jew is being a member of that religious faith, a race or follower/member of the state of Israel so what possible right can they have to inclusion on our partliament.The power of their lobby, as in the USA, would far outweigh any other relgious sect in relation to their numbers in this country , about 350,000 I think.

Actually I think it’s pretty fascist for anyone to isolate and pick on any religious group for the purposes of trying to push forward an agenda of no religion. No better than anyone who would try to force or bully you into believing in their god or religion.

I stand by the decision of any individual in the census to pick any religion they please. As for mine, well I put down ‘unspoken’.

I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I refuse to tick the “No Religion” box, because atheists like Dawkins whoud misuse this statistic to claim support for their irrational creed. So, what do I do?