Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies Government It's funny.  Laugh. Sci-Fi Politics

Britain's First Jedi Member of Parliament 1165

Posted by timothy
from the sad-funny-or-just-bizarre dept.
earthlingpink writes "In his maiden speech to the House of Commons, the Hon. Member for Copeland, Jamie Reed MP, announced that he is a Jedi: "as the first Jedi Member of this place, I look forward to the protection under the law that will be provided to me by the Bill" (the quotation is a fair way down the page; search for 'Jedi,' not surprisingly). How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?" Update: 06/29 23:15 GMT by T : Reader JE_Hoover adds a correction: "Although the previous MP for Copeland was the Hon. Member for Copeland, the current MP for Copeland is not a member of the privy council. Debretts make it all clear."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Britain's First Jedi Member of Parliament

Comments Filter:
  • by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:23PM (#12943117)

    This whole Jedi religion [scaryplace.com] dreck has now officially gone too far. To those misguided simpletons out there who insist on calling themselves 'Jedi knights', I offer you this chance to prove yourselves:
    • Just build a lightsaber. A real one. That's all.

    What's that...you can't? Don't have suitable raw materials, you say?
    OK...that's fair...how about this, then:
    • Force choke me. From where you are right now. Go ahead...it's OK.

    Are you doing it? I'm not feeling anything...
    • Did you misplace your sense of humor today? Did a jedi hit you as a kid?
      • by eggz128 (447435) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:28PM (#12943181)

        Did a jedi hit you as a kid?


        I think you mean "Youngling". :)
        • Maybe he failed the admission exam.
          • more likely he smelled the emission exam...

            no, I actually completely agree with him. There's no such thing as the force, and there never will be :)

            • by Phillup (317168) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @03:07PM (#12943653)
              There's no such thing as the force, and there never will be

              And, this is different from other religions how?
      • by infonography (566403) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @03:17PM (#12943758) Homepage
        Lucky for him, there are no active volcanos in the British Isles.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      It's more a rejection of conventional religion. See the review of the UKs 2000 census - according to the stats the UK has more Jedis than Jews.

    • by 91degrees (207121) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:30PM (#12943197) Journal
      Well, okay... But first you have to challenge any christian to turn water into wine without any special apparatus.

      Most "Jedi" are simply making a statement that belief in the force is no more rational than belief in any other religion.
      • by homerules (688184) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:34PM (#12943252)
        Most Christians, if not all, do not believe they are Christ. On the other hand most Jedi think they are Luke Skywalker.
      • Wrong Claim (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mr Guy (547690) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:37PM (#12943301) Journal
        Not really.

        It's entirely different to claim to believe in Jedi and to claim to BE a Jedi. According to the books I've read and the movies, a Jedi is capable of performing these actions. They all have their "talents" but to be a Jedi you have to be able to manipulate the force in some tangible and demonstrable way.

        The water to wine thing doesn't hold. It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers. If they were claiming to be Jesus, on the other hand, by all means, ask for proof. Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.
        • Re:Wrong Claim (Score:5, Informative)

          by geeber (520231) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:56PM (#12943545)
          The water to wine thing doesn't hold. It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers.

          For what it is worth, Catholics believe that the priest turns the sacramental host and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ during mass. which is not too far removed from your example.
        • Re:Wrong Claim (Score:5, Insightful)

          by phpWebber (693379) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @03:02PM (#12943603)
          Ok fine.
          Than as a Christian, prove you are _like_ Christ.

          - Treat all people no matter what their sickness or sexual conduct as God's children.
          - Suspend your criticism of other's sins unless you are without
          - Put other's well-being before your own
          - Live a life of spirituality, not wealth
          - Openly critize the leaders of your religion and texts
          - Refrain from any anger at any time except in the case when someone is profiting from your religion
          - Be willing to sacrifice yourself for what you believe in

          Lots of people claim to be Christians. How many really are?
        • by geeber (520231) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @03:40PM (#12944080)
          If they were claiming to be Jesus, on the other hand, by all means, ask for proof. Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.

          Thomas did ask for proof, yes, and he got his proof. But Jesus castigated also him for it. Daring to ask for proof was seen as a much weaker for of faith than belief without seeing.

          Such a philosophy goes a long way towards explaining the current climate in the US.
    • by Aggrazel (13616) <aggrazel@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:31PM (#12943210) Journal
      The jedi religion is just as real as any other, IMO, except perhaps better written.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        I don't know. Scientology is extremely well written. Long long time ago, space ships, nukes, zombie souls.
      • The jedi religion is just as real as any other, IMO, except perhaps better written.

        Screw that quaint old religion. I'd rather be celebrating Life Day with Art Carney, Bea Arthur, and the music of Jefferson Starship!
    • by mbrewthx (693182) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:36PM (#12943281)
      I find your lack of Faith disturbing!!!

  • by WebHostingGuy (825421) * on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:23PM (#12943119) Homepage Journal
    Jedi Academy Student [lucasarts.com]
    Jedi Programmer [delphi-jedi.org]
    Jedi Religious Member [explorefaith.org]

    And did he use the Official Jedi Name Generator? [xach.com]
  • Scared (Score:5, Funny)

    by islandrain (888578) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:23PM (#12943120) Homepage
    Am I the only person who doesn't see the Jedi belief system flawed? I could only imagine the devestation to the republic if this became popular.
  • by dstewart (853530) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:23PM (#12943121)
    This is not the article you are looking for.
  • by Silverlancer (786390) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:24PM (#12943127)
    This is not the congressman you're looking for.
  • Answer (Score:5, Funny)

    by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann...slashdot@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:26PM (#12943152) Homepage Journal
    How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?

    Oh, but we have. Problem is... they're all Siths. And the greedy kind.
  • by MECC (8478) * on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:26PM (#12943155)
    "How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?"

    They get Jedi, we get Sith...

  • Oy vey (Score:5, Funny)

    by MAXOMENOS (9802) <maxomai@gmaEINST ... minus physicist> on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:26PM (#12943158) Homepage
    As if there wasn't enough lunacy in Parliament.
  • Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richie1984 (841487) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:27PM (#12943165)
    I'm glad that he's paying attention to this ridiculous bill by showing how daft the implications of it would be. Hopefully, along with Rowan Atkinson's [bbc.co.uk] recent attack, the bill will be defeated
    • Re:Good for him (Score:5, Informative)

      by ettlz (639203) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:36PM (#12943295) Journal
      Spot on. For those posters who don't understand, this MP isn't making a mockery of Parliament or taking the mick. He's pointing out stupidity in currently proposed legislation that would make a crime of "incitement to religious hatred". A lot of people here in the UK are quite rightly worried that this will put religions (which, let us not forget are lifestyle choices and private members' clubs) beyond questionability, and allow New Labour to cry "yoink" on yet another freedom.
    • Re:Good for him (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gsfprez (27403) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @05:32PM (#12945363)
      Wait a second - thats total bullshit.

      "To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom."

      Hold the phone... how can it be "manifestly irrational" to criticize someone's race (and what he REALLY means is culture, not race, and we all know it) and yet NOT the same to do so when its their religion.

      I reserve the right to mock Mormons, Hindus, hip-hop artists, those who woof, wear bling-bling, thow down 24" spinners on their Escalades, Bhuddists, and all types of niggas equally. The problem becomes when people ASSUME i'm talking about skin colors. I have absolutely no issue with your race - there's nothing you can do about it...

      but i have also no issue rightfully criticizing the Mexican culture and its lack of educational discipline by bringing the US 10 million uneducated and pregnant illegal entrants...

      i can also criticize white American culture for its inane love of NASCAR as a leitimate sport, belt buckles thge size of satellte dishes, and their insessent need to overfill their homes with crap made by Chinese slave labor.

      Niether one of these makes any derrogatory comment about race... i've seen very pale skinned Mexican nationals bring 5 kids here to be clothed, fed, educated, and medicated by my tax dollars (and the money they save me in the price of lettuce doesn't come close to covering the bill, sorry), and i've met some absolutely humbling African people of tremendous stature, wisdom, and courage.

      as John Cleese said.. Race "doesntenterintoit!"

      I judge by the content of character, not on the content of skin...

      but what Rowan says means that i wouldn't get the chance to call him the pasty simpleton cracker limey that he is... and that's just not fair.
  • by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:27PM (#12943173)
    Or maybe Count Obama?

    Somehow "Master Kennedy" just doesn't have the same ring to it. And "Darth Delay" is only slightly better than "General Grievous"
  • by InsomniaCity (599389) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:30PM (#12943204)

    Here is Jamie Reed's MP page [theyworkforyou.com] on My Society's [mysociety.org] excellent TheyWorkForYou project.

    And here [theyworkforyou.com] is the screen scraped debate, that you can comment on like a blog.

  • Insult! (Score:4, Funny)

    by t'mbert (301531) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:32PM (#12943221)
    This is an absolute insult to those of us who hold religious beliefs. Now the faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Muslimism are on par with something made up in a movie!
    • Re:Insult! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wk633 (442820)
      Honestly not sure if you're joking- but if not then it raises an all important point that one person's religsion is another person's wackiness. Wicca is a serious religion for many people, but is still viewed as 'wacky' by a large part of the US population. Whatever you think you know about Wicca, people who are serious Wiccans deserve the same protections that you do as whatever you are.
    • Re:Insult! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Narchie Troll (581273) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:40PM (#12943339)
      +1 Funny, use of word "Muslimism"

      Also: there's been a religion based on sci-fi books [scientology.org] for decades.
    • Re:Insult! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DeathFlame (839265)
      You may be joking, but if your not...

      What if I stood up in Parliment (if an MP) and said I followed the ideals of Hobbits of Middle Earth, and that that was my religious belief.

      I mean, that's just something made up in a book...

      (kinda like the bible)
    • Re:Insult! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by erroneus (253617)
      That wouldn't make it an insult to be on par with something made up for a movie. That would be something of an elevation.

      But as far as I'm concerned, ALL religion is made up and it's merely a matter of how long ago and how many people actually believe it presently that marks it as valid or invalid. As early as the age of 10, I realized that all of these other "dead religions" (AKA mythologies) were just as important to those who followed them 'back then' as contemporary religion is today.

      I amaze myself
      • Re:Insult! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by failure-man (870605)
        Sure, a 10 year old can realize this, assuming they've not already been indoctrinated by then. When you were ten you hadn't been brainwashed by religion. If you had been you'd probably still be.
  • by OmniGeek (72743) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:32PM (#12943224)
    Clearly, the Congresscritters in the US will never go Jedi, as they're already devotees of the Book of Bokonon. This can be seen by their tendency to speak in foma, or as the rest of us call them, "reassuring lies." ;-)
  • by 91degrees (207121) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:33PM (#12943240) Journal
    You have to realise that the British don't take anything too seriously, especially politics and religion.

    In the US, I suspect a politician making light of religion in this way would upset a lot of people in The Bible Belt.
  • by david.given (6740) <dg@co w l a r k . c om> on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:35PM (#12943278) Homepage Journal
    ...is available at the TheyWorkForYou.com page [theyworkforyou.com].

    If you read some of the rest of the debate --- surprisingly good stuff, provided you skim it and don't get bogged down in the interminable speeches --- you'll realise that the statement was in the context of a debate on the Racial And Religious Hatred Bill, now undergoing reading for the second time. I'm not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman saw fit to follow it up with a rather long lecture on Cumbrian history, that was only brought short by his running out of time and the Speaker cutting him off...

  • by pickapeppa (731249) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:41PM (#12943348)
    We'll have a Jedi Senator years before we'll have an atheist one.
  • A little context (Score:5, Informative)

    by RogueyWon (735973) * on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:48PM (#12943442) Journal
    Ok, this one isn't quite as simple or as amusing as the summary makes out, I'm afraid.

    One of the live issues here in the UK at the moment is the "Incitement to Religious Hatred" bill that Blair is currently pushing through Parliament. This is broadly similar to the existing laws on "Incitement to Racial Hatred". The difference is that, under current laws, only Jews and Sikhs are protected, according to some interpretations. Christianity is protected separately, under some rarely (read "not in my lifetime") enforced blasphemy laws. Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group, so you can argue that they're not protected. This, the Blairites say, means that people can hurl racial abuse at Muslims with impunity. This is obviously bollocks, of course, since this would count as racial hatred anyway, so all the situation really needs is for existing laws to be enforced...

    Now, the reason why this is being pushed through is that the Labour party has taken a lot of flak over Iraq from the UK's Islamic community, which is normally a staunch supporter of Labour. Indeed, a deeply unpleasant specimen by the name of George Galloway (he of "Sir I Salute Your Indefatigability" fame) managed to beat a sitting Labour MP in a normally safe seat at the last general election, standing on an extremist anti-war, anti-establishment platform (which is a little ironic considering his own lifestyle). Therefore, Labour introduces this bill in an effort to get the UK Islamic community behind them again.

    Now, this leads to two problems. First of all, a lot of people, particularly commedians, notice that this has serious implications for freedom of speech. One can no longer ridicule a religion or its texts and be sure of being on safe legal ground. Now, Blair's response to this was to say that the letter of the law would not be enforced. This is obviously a pretty pathetic argument and kind of missing the whole point of "the law" (that it lets people know whether they are behaving legally or not). It also leaves the door open to all kinds of future abuses.

    The other problem is that if Blair honestly doesn't intend to see the law enforced, then he's creating a lot of false expectations among the UK Islamic community and other particularly devout religious groups. A lot of these people are expecting that, come the enactment of this, it will be illegal to say anything critical of their religion or to call any aspect of it into question. If this doesn't happen, there could be a lot of disappointment, some of it violent.

    So all in all, this story is a little more serious than it first seems.
    • by Reverend528 (585549) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @04:55PM (#12944995) Homepage
      This, the Blairites say, means that people can hurl racial abuse at Muslims with impunity. This is obviously bollocks, of course, since this would count as racial hatred anyway

      What about white muslims? I can still make fun of Cat Stevens, right?

  • by howardcohen (244367) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:51PM (#12943491)

    ...you're doing waving your hand around like that?

    I'm a Congressman. Mind tricks don't work on me. Only money.

  • Seriously: (Score:4, Informative)

    by Armadni General (869957) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @02:57PM (#12943550)
    More people need to RTFA. No, I'm not new here, but still. Usually, people manage to get it somewhere on topic. This discussion is just completely out there.

    This member of Parliament isn't really proclaiming himself as a Jedi or anything of the sort. He's trying to make the consequences of potential legislation easier to understand.

    Basically, they're working on a bill which would make stirring up hated against members of a religion, illegal. But the bill is total crap, so much so to the point where it would make any and all religions virtually immune to criticism.

    Those of us who live in America, and are into the topic of religion, namely online discussion on forums and the like (so that's why this is on Slashdot!), often enjoy a high amount of freedom in questioning the legitimacy of Jesus, or the Muslim world's seemingly-manic obsession with demonizing Christianity, or anything else which might brand you as a heretic in that religion's home-base.

    If this bill were passed, any who enjoy that right and excercise it in public would potentially be committing an illegal act.

    Of course, in the Western world the Internet is still largely a frontier for government monitoring and regulation. It's too dynamic. In public, however, there's little doubt that any statement or action which might even remotely irritate a member of a certain religion (double points if it's a minority) would be regarded as hate-inciting and therefore illegal.

    The bottom line is, there goes another freedom! Unless this bill is stopped.
  • by IcyNeko (891749) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @03:04PM (#12943621) Journal
    With all these people going Jedi on us, I'm wondering how many people check their roots and realize that it is not the Jedi that they are, but Numenorians??! Why do people give up on teh Valar so easily?
  • by PMuse (320639) on Wednesday June 29, 2005 @04:01PM (#12944374)
    Answer: Never. Or when the U.S. changes over to proportional representation [wikipedia.org], whichever comes first.

Philogyny recapitulates erogeny; erogeny recapitulates philogyny.

Working...