This follows on from: Re: [LINK] remember the jedi?
Considering how (to some people) ridiculous, contrived and recent some
religions are - such as Scientology, Latter Day Saints or Elvisism - and
how varied and contrary to each other all the other hundreds or
thousands of known religions are, I don't see why anyone should regard
any religious belief system as "serious" in some objective sense.
I think that the "seriousness" of the belief - the tenacity or sincerity
with which the belief is held - has nothing to with the "seriousness" -
validity - of what is believed.
This is proven time and again by different individuals or groups of
people having unshakable, sincere, "serious" belief in a vast array of
belief systems, all of which are partially or totally contrary to each
other, and so of which at most one could be correct, with all the others
being partially or completely false.
The fact that some of these systems have been going for thousands of
years and others only since the nineteenth century or the 1950s seems to
be irrelevant to whether they should be regarded as "serious" - either
in respect of how sincere etc. the believers are, or in terms the
validity of what they believe. I don't think that Christianity was
any less serious in its early years than it is now. Likewise, I don't
think that Scientology less serious now than it will be in a hundred
years time.
Non-believers such as myself, or believers in other religions, may form
opinions about how particular belief systems are clearly false, and how
some of them - such as Scientology - began as a joke, or as some kind of
cynical plan. But such detailed negative opinions about the origin of
belief systems are more likely to be formed about systems which started
in recent times - especially those which started in our own supposedly
rational, civilised society. This is partly because we are more likely
to know in details the origins of recently formed belief systems, partly
because we expect greater rationality or worldliness of people in more
recent times, and also because of an unfortunate tendency to think more
highly of things which have been going for centuries or millennia.
Therefore, there may be a tendency to think that belief systems which
have been going for thousands of years are more "serious", firstly
because of the longevity of their grip on adherents and secondly because
we lack insight into how the belief system arose. Also, I guess, we
are tempted to think that if people have been sincerely believing for
the last 50,000 years that the Earth is a giant wombat turd, then there
must be some truth in it!
I don't see any religion I know of as being "serious" in terms of its
beliefs having cosmological credibility. (I think the value of their
moralities vary widely.) For instance I find Christianity offensive and
myopic for a number of reasons, such as its insistence that all humans
are sinners, its intense speciesism (humans are fundamentally different
from "animals") and its insistence that this planet has some unique role
in the scheme of things. Also, the common notion that Christians have
some kind of special claim to generosity is offensive. Generosity has
been around for a long time and is not limited to humans or religious
believers.
I believe Christianity is no more based in reality than Scientology,
Jediism or Elvisism. At least, I can attest that Elvis could sing and
entertain - and I think it healthier to worship someone whose claims to
be a good singer are well proven, than to worship someone who claims to
be the only son of god and whose purpose in life is to save all humans
from hell!
Movies, television, stage productions, music and dance performances and
recordings, actors and actresses, sporting stars, musicians, DJs,
writers, artists, politicians and other celebrities have taken over some
of the brain-space formerly colonised by religion, thereby reducing the
demand for churches and traditional religious involvement. So I think
its perfectly valid to just get on with it and worship Elvis or
religiously adopt a higher system of moral values which originated in
the entertainment industry, such as Jediism.
Before I etched this word "jediism" into the rock of Link forever, I
thought I had better check it was a valid term. Sure enough, Google
finds 1,070 pages (meanwhile "church of elvis" turns up 1,920 pages),
and top of the list is:
The domain was registered on 18 January 2002 by Cindy Raymond of
Encinitas California. This is a fully fledged religion - tracing its
roots to the Star Wars movies and to traditions of thought going back
5,000 years.
The 21 point Jedi code is at:
http://www.jediism.org/generic.html?pid=0
It looks OK to me - though I only scanned it. But many religions start
off nobly and diverge and degenerate. (I would start a religion
devoted to cuddles, spankings, dressups and bubblebaths if I thought
there was some bulletproof way of stopping it degenerating. Fritz the
Cat would dig it!) It was sincere, devote, god-fearing Christians who
went to the New World and cut off the limbs of non-believers in order to
save their souls from hell. I don't know much about Christ, but I am
pretty sure he wouldn't have done this. How long will it be before
someone who sincerely believes in the Jedi code, or some twisted
adaptation of it, takes it upon themselves to harm someone else for
their own good?
Also:
http://www.jedireligion.com
"678 Members have made 14639 posts in 18 forums"
Registered April 2001 or perhaps earlier by David Dorey,
Surrey, UK.
I see no reason whatsoever to think that Jediism be considered a joke,
or to be any less valid than other religions (which doesn't mean much in
my view!). I don't have any reason to doubt the sincerity or
seriousness of the beliefs of the people who are involved in these web
sites.
I thought it was a bit of a joke when I marked myself in the census as
belonging to the Jedi faith - but I was mistaken. Jediism is as
"serious" a religion as any other.
Australia has laws about religious vilification - which I think are
absolutely wrong. The ABA has pursued this once in a Scientology
complaint about the "Liars Club" program on 3RRR (Google 3RRR
scientology ABA for the details). I would say that if someone has been
on the radio saying that the Jedi religion is a joke, then the the ABA
would be legally empowered and obliged to pursue this as religious
vilification. Whether a religion began in the last decade, the 1950s,
the last century or a few millennia clearly has nothing to do with its
"seriousness" in the eyes of the law.
- Robin
http://www.firstpr.com.au http://fondlyandfirmly.com
----------
For Link list information see http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/link/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Sat Aug 31 2002 - 03:10:04 EST