Might go for Digambara Jainist this time.

by putting jedi on your form you’re actually skewing the data in favour of the very thing you’re passively protesting about.

Actually the many headlines generated by 390k people putting “jedi” on the census almost certainly do more to bring attention to the lack of religious faith in wacky twentysomethings than if they had all put “no religion” on the form.

Rusty, the TJ defence is not a term that should be used here (seriously).

Seem to remember you using it a few times, in a very pejorative manner, during your bullying of TJ.
Nevermind, perhaps you were just being ironic. Perhaps it was all just banter.

Nothing wrong with a bit of banter – it’s just that with your constant trolling, retractions, justifications in the name of humour etc it’s difficult to tell which bits to believe and which bits are designed to boost your obviously fragile ego. 🙂

Sometimes I think I’m starting to get your humour.
Other times I just think you’re a hypocritical knob. 😀

Anyway, real life intervenes – off for a bike ride.

I once put down “non practicing” and “atheist” on a dating website (there were tickbox options only). Only a couple of femmes got it (my joke that is, well or anything else for that matter).

Rusty, TJ has told me that I had it wrong re. the TJ defence (among many other things) and I accept that.

Fair points otherwise, if in doubt, I and my fragile ego are having a laugh.

Think the humanists have missed a trick. As always they’re too serious and highbrow, instead of pushing for the ‘tick the no religion’ box why not encourage a nation of Jedi’s which would make bigger headlines and surely further their cause.

We had a humanist wedding which was great and can’t fault that, but all the humanist workshops, meetings, articles, etc. just seem to be intellectualising it all way too much which in the end put us off staying members.

Why can’t we all just ‘be excellent to each other’?

For instance I could say I was an Ultra Orthodox Jew (I’m not). The Census group cannot disprove this.

True, but realistically, why would you? The only reason I can see would be to intentionally poison the data in a statistically insignifcant manner. Now, if you were to get a group of people onside to do it, perhaps an Internet campaign… and we’re back to Jedi again.

But if I lie about my age, sex, number of kids – they can check.

Again, why would they? If they don’t already hold this data, then what would give them cause to check? And if they do hold this data, what’s the point of the census?

So the data about religion has limited use, and, to be frank, is something harking back to historical censuseseses (censi?).

It’s optional as well, which skews results further. I’m speculating, but I’d expect that people would be more inclined to answer the question if they had strong religious beliefs; the agnostic and the non-militant atheists would perhaps be more inclined to ignore it out of apathy.

(Btw, the latin plural of census is “census”; the English plural is “censuses” I believe.)

—

Actually the many headlines generated by 390k people putting “jedi” on the census almost certainly do more to bring attention to the lack of religious faith in wacky twentysomethings than if they had all put “no religion” on the form.

Yes, you’re right, but. As you said yourself, it’s “wacky,” it’s treated as a joke. Hell, it is a joke. When looking at statistics for serious reasons though, it’s skewed data.

Hypothetically, say I was campaigning for a secular means of swearing an oath in court (yes I know, bad example but roll with me here); I might want to use census stats to argue how many people would benefit from this. Thanks to the jedis I’ve automatically lost a third of a million votes before I’ve started.

all the humanist workshops, meetings, articles, etc. just seem to be intellectualising it all way too much

I really struggle with the concept of having meetings about something you don’t believe in. It’s like starting a club for people who don’t snowboard, or publishing a magazine for folk who don’t collect elephants.

Cougar – I guess I was just trying to say the data is useless whatever you put – which I think you’re agreeing with?

BigJohn – Member
I will not describe myself as an atheist because that means I am defining myself in terms of something I do not beleive to exist.

Did you think that through before you typed it?

Well, apart from spelling believe wrong, yes that’s what I mean. Other people can call me an atheist, because that refers to their view. But as atheist translates as “without God” I don’t think of myself as “without something which doesn’t exist”.

a magazine for folk who don’t collect elephants

Is this available? I’ve always wanted to get really good at not collecting elephants so all tips and pointers would be useful.

BJ – you don’ think the fact that you don’t subscribe to any of the belief systems that the majority on the planet (probably*) do is a better and more meaningful way of putting it than not having a belief in God?

Then it’s on everyone’s terms, and you can relax about it 😉

So the data about religion has limited use, and, to be frank, is something harking back to historical censuseseses (censi?).

I think it was only introduced as a question in the 1991 or 2001 Census (apart from Northern Ireland where it has a longer history.

The census is being run buy a US company that has an American legal requirement to release the results to the CIA.

Lockeed supply the computers/scanners, no different to if they were supplied by Dell, Mesh, or RM. Presumably Ammerican Companies are excluded from the bidding process as they wouldnt fourfill the requirments of the data protection act, pretty important in a statistics gathering excercise?

As for the comments about ‘Jedi’ being counted as religious, thats not true, last time arround they were classed allong with atheist/agnostic/pastafarian/church of the invisible pink unicorn.

Yes, you’re right, but. As you said yourself, it’s “wacky,” it’s treated as a joke. Hell, it is a joke.

Yes, it’s not even a serious “humourous” protest – if you know what I mean.

But if it was intended as a form of protest would you still regard the integrity of the census data as more important?

Maybe us atheists should campaign to have Jedis counted as “no religion”. Can someone set up a Facebook group for me to join please?

Jedi was assigned its own code in the United Kingdom for census processing, the number 896.[15] Officials from the Office for National Statistics pointed out that this merely means that it has been registered as a common answer to the “religion” question and that this does not confer on it the status of official recognition. John Pullinger, Director of Reporting and Analysis for the Census, noted that many people who would otherwise not have completed a Census form did so solely to record themselves as Jedi, so this joke helped to improve the quality of the Census. The Office of National Statistics revealed the total figure in a press release entitled “390,000 Jedis there are”

from here.

This implies to me that only those people who fit into an official religion will be counted as religious and Jedi’s are not amongst them.

It goes on to say…

In June 2005, Jamie Reed, newly-elected Labour Member of Parliament for Copeland in Cumbria, declared himself to be the first Jedi Member of Parliament during his maiden speech.

and

in April 2006, Edward Leigh, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Gainsborough, asked whether he would be allowed to set up a Jedi knights faith school during a Committee debate on the Education and Inspections Bill

To my mind this would imply that Jedi is used to make a point by many people from the man in the street to our parliamentary representatives.

Those that are piously appealing to our citizenly sense of duty are suffering not only from a bit of a sense of humour failure but also from a woeful misinterpretation of the spirit of the joke.

MTFBWY.

in April 2006, Edward Leigh, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Gainsborough, asked whether he would be allowed to set up a Jedi knights faith school during a Committee debate on the Education and Inspections Bill

😆

Drac, it was funny if you hear it done in the voice of the posters name.

Cougar – I guess I was just trying to say the data is useless whatever you put – which I think you’re agreeing with?

Hm. Yes and no. I think that its collection is flawed in so far as optional questions are pointless, either ask the question or don’t.

Whether there’s any use to knowing the statistical breakdown of the religious make-up of the UK is beyond my knowledge. I think it’s interesting, certainly.

Is this available? I’ve always wanted to get really good at not collecting elephants so all tips and pointers would be useful.

It’d be a useful publication as this has always been a bit of a grey area.

As for the comments about ‘Jedi’ being counted as religious, thats not true, last time arround they were classed allong with atheist/agnostic/pastafarian/church of the invisible pink unicorn.

Officially this may be true; however, if the raw data is available then they can be classed as whatever is most convenient at the time by whoever is quoting statistics to reinforce a point. Given that the census differentiates between “atheist” and “none” (or at least, it did last time), there’s perhaps scope for manipulation.

Yes, it’s not even a serious “humourous” protest – if you know what I mean.

If memory serves, it wasn’t even a protest last time around. It was a campaign along the lines of if ten thousand people put it on their forms then the Government would “have” to recognise it as an official religion (only, with more exclamation marks and worse spelling).

EDIT – as Tor just said, oops.

“The company, which makes Trident nuclear missiles, cluster bombs and F-16 fighter jets, won the £150m contract to run the census on behalf of the Office for National Statistics (ONS)”

from the grundiad might not be right but running the census implys more than supplying hardware.