I worry for the human race.

It is a cult, not a religion.

Traditional religions are not based on books. Their sacred texts codify cultural practices that in many cases precede any written record by centuries. While trad. religion may feature prominent figures like Jesus or Buddha they are not strictly speaking personality cults. Today in our multicultural society things appear to be different but for 99.999% of human history one’s religion IS one’s culture.

Jedi don’t need to keep their hood on for religious purposes. Of course this could all be solved with a clarification from the Jedi Master himself–Steve Sansweet.

/you thought I was going to say Georgie, didn’ you!

This is my fav: http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide

First off, there isn’t a rationale for most religions. If they were invented today, we’d make fun of them.

Yes, exactly my point! Let’s make fun of this guy!

stated “Yes, the Tesco PR person is pretty funny, but the humor is based on the idea of questioning the reasonably of a person’s stated religious beliefs. Many of us would agree that basing one’s religion on a fictional fantasy story where some key people have magical powers is silly”

I agree … your point… ironically applies to almost every religion

Sure, that’s easy. Do you have the cajones to start making fun of the Burqa wearers or the zombie carpenter believers? And really, enough with the prohibitions on pork? Is trichinosis really God’s sword to smite the backsliders?

I’m missing your reference to a religion based on an “anorexic Asian prince”… could you elucidate? (I haven’t had my morning cuppa yet)

Shouldn’t be new religions’ fault that they happened to be formed in a literate age. I think it could be reasonably argued that many people today are converted by text.

“While trad. religion may feature prominent figures like Jesus or Buddha they are not strictly speaking personality cults.”

Hmm. I honestly do not wish to offend, but it’s difficult to argue a religion does not have shades of a personality cult in its practise when some worshippers see fit to adoring toast. Maybe that’s not the Pope’s fault, but religion is at least partially defined by its practitioners, not just official dogma.

And when every store in the country has that particular dress code?

What’s next, tshirts?

Most religions have a tiny core of philosophers, usually including the founder, and masses of practitioners who mostly regard it as ritual/social convention/superstition/etc. In the tiny core, you’d have a hard time telling the difference between adherents of different religions.

I’m lucky enough to live in a country where that seems extremely unlikely, so I really don’t know how I’d deal with that situation. Join some civil rights organization and organize some protests, probably. Maybe try to move my family somewhere better if I got the chance.

Back to the topic at hand: I see no contradiction in believing Tesco responded irrationally (albeit humorously) to a guy who is acting like a total dork.

Followers of established religions have been told for centuries that their beliefs are not based on fiction. Time has a way of adding legitimacy (earned or otherwise) to wacky beliefs. It’s a helluva lot easier to prove that Yoda was a puppet than to ascertain the divinity of a guy who died 2000 years ago.

The most honest definition of what makes a cult as opposed to a religion was Ambrose Bierce’s in the Devil’s Dictionary. “Cult: A small unpopular religion.”

The only reason why traditional religions aren’t classified as personality cults today is because the personality is long dead. However I would still argue that revering any person as divine and good is by definition a personality cult.

Ever since I was young child reading about Grecco-Roman mythology and realizing that the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t invent Zeus/Juptier et al because they were biding they’re time for Jesus, and that if religion could change once, it could change again, I’ve found the the entire concept of religion profoundly insulting.

TESCO FIGHTS BACK OVER HOODIE ROW
27 October, 2006
http://www.retail-week.com/tesco-fights-back-over-hoodie-row/105216.article

Tesco has defended itself against accusations of hypocrisy after a security guard told a six-year-old boy to remove his hooded top that had been bought in the supermarket.

SUPPORT GROWS FOR OUR HOODIE CRUSADE
Sunday April 6,2008
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/40392

Last week a harrowing series of stories emerged, highlighting the need for a ban on hoodies in public places.

SHOP REGRETS ‘HOODIE’ HUMILIATION
Tuesday, 21 February 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4735154.stm

A supermarket has apologised to a 58-year-old teaching assistant who was asked by an over-zealous security guard to remove her hooded top.

TROUBLE-MAKER BANNED FROM WEARING HOODED TOPS
26/06/2008
http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/Trouble__maker-banned-from-wearing-hooded-tops-newsinkent14085.aspx

A teenage yob has been banned from wearing a ‘hoodie’ as part of a strict six-point ASBO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Early_life_and_marriage

He had an eating disorder, but was able to learn from it.

“Mr Jones, who also goes by the Jedi name Morda Hehol, claimed he was ‘victimised over his beliefs’ and left ‘emotionally humiliated’ when staff deemed him a security risk…”

This guy’s somehow deluded himself into believing he’s gotten profound spirituality from the same dude who created Jar-Jar Binks–that wasn’t already emotionally humiliating?

Unrelatedly, I wonder if these Jedis have to take vows of celibacy, or if that’s just redundant?

There were three people standing and talking, and he was intimidated?

Maybe he tried not to be intimidated, but there is no try. Only do, or not do.

Total, utter Jedi FAIL. This padawan is stormtrooper kibble.

Star Wars was created to entertain.

Religions in general were created to explain things not understood by man at the time of their inception (the reason *most* religions came about before the Age of Enlightenment, mostly).

Why did the sea part? Well, the ancients didn’t know, so they said a guy named Moses did it. Why did the sea get angry? Well, the ancients didn’t know, so they said a dude named Poseidon got pissed off because Zeus stole his lady or something. You have to view the inception of religion before you can compare Christianity to Jedi, for example.

“No, no matter how silly or insane or disingenuous we think the guy is, *we* do not get to choose whether what he believes gets treated as a “real religion”. Because that would be bigotry.”

Yes, yes we *do* get to choose whether or not it’s a real religion. Because his religion is based on a story which has this express disclaimer:

“The events depicted in this movie are fictitious. Any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental.”

But Brainspore, that isn’t what they did. They told him his interpretation of the religion he founded, which is only partly based on the Lucas movies, was wrong based on what they saw in the Lucas movies. I think my analogy is closer.

Noen 69: It is a cult, not a religion.

Care to give us a definition of that distinction that separates the two where they should be separated, yet doesn’t classify as a “cult” any religion that happens to be new and/or practiced by a tiny minority? If you can, you’d be the first one ever to do that.

I suspect you may think a cult is a religion that’s new and practiced by a tiny minority, but unless you admit that or demonstrate it with more evidence than I’ve seen so far I’m not going to make that accusation.

Traditional religions are not based on books.

Suddenly you’re talking about “traditional” religions. Does that mean the ones that have the Noen seal of approval as “real” religions as opposed to “cults”? If not, what does it mean? Also, what does this have to do with anything? The poster you’re responding to said “several of the world’s current religions.”

Their sacred texts codify cultural practices that in many cases precede any written record by centuries.

So for you a “traditional” religion is one that imposes the culture of a preliterate society on a modern one? In what possible way is that a good thing?

While trad. religion may feature prominent figures like Jesus or Buddha they are not strictly speaking personality cults.

Nonsense. If Jesus and his disciples started going around today doing and saying similarly-disruptive things, we’d call them a cult. Probably Homeland Security would raid them, and they’d be tried for terrorism because they had some wine (in water jugs!) in the house they shared.

Today in our multicultural society things appear to be different but for 99.999% of human history one’s religion IS one’s culture.

Not only nonsense, but ignorant nonsense in this case. Just as one uncharged example, most people would count food styles as one aspect of culture; yet the food eaten in Moslem-dominated Iran is more like the food eaten in Hindu-majority India than it is like the food eaten in Moslem-dominated Saudi Arabia. Roman Catholic Ireland of a hundred years ago did not eat the same food as Roman Catholic Italy, and anyone who cannot see the profound differences in those two cultures even ignoring food, and going back hundreds of years, is just not looking.

Their religion may be an over glorified fan club, and not an officially recognised religion. So what? What happened to simply ignoring someone you do not agree with? If they aren’t actually doing anything illegal, why bother them?

Oh- this is in the UK where no one knows how to mind their own business. This is where police hassle photographers despite the fact that they conduct extreme levels of video surveillance on the public. This is where malls ban grandparents for taking family photos in a place with security cameras. This is a place that targets people suspected of ‘antisocial behavior’ by refusing service, or public humiliation by displaying posters warning others that these persons are ‘anti-social’. This is a place that encourages people to report ‘suspicious’ neighbors.

In America for the most part we give you the benefit of the doubt. Here we don’t care how you dress or what galaxy you claim to be from, so long as you can pay for your merchandise. Businesses do have a right to make policies, rules, or to refuse service. But then customers reserve the right to take their money elsewhere. To be fair people are discriminated against or refused service here, but ultimately businesses often regret it due to legal action. For the most part- I’ve been in supermarkets where customers wear all sorts of things. Other than a few double takes nothing really happens. They are usually extended the same level of service as others.

Here the reaction might be- “So you’re supposed to be a Jedi? Cool. So did you make that costume yourself? Do you go to conventions? My kid loves Star Wars. Dude- please tell me you have a girlfriend. Say hi to Yoda for me. Hey, you might like the Star Wars stuff we have in the toy dept. OK-That’ll be $67.96. Thank You, Sir for shopping at Wal Mart! Next, Please!”

Here you have to usually do something truly disruptive to be banned- and even then it seldom comes to that. The person might reconsider their choice of wardrobe, and people may laugh, but they are seldom asked to leave. Making a scene and turning away customers is bad for business. Or do they not care about this in the UK?

We are in a new age.

Yes, it’s really, really funny that this guy has a silly religion that appears to be based on Star Wars. Gosh yes. Please lets all do the lame jokes about Jedi mind tricks.

No, no matter how silly or insane or disingenuous we think the guy is, *we* do not get to choose whether what he believes gets treated as a “real religion”. Because that would be bigotry.

If you have evidence that the guy is taking the piss, please share it here. But being silly is not that.

The UK: where freedom decreases day by day.

Dharmic religions commonly believe that everything is illusion.