Jedi May Be Allowed To Perform Marriage Ceremonies In Scotland 196
ceview writes "The Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill (Scotland) will allow groups promoting a belief to marry couples according to a report on the BBC. The government said the change was relevant to bodies such as humanists, who are classed as religious rather than non-religious at the moment. Groups such as The Flat Earth Society and Jedi would be allowed to perform such ceremonies."
And why not ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The important opinions are of the two people who are getting married. If they choose to have a bit of fun on the day that they dedicate themselves to each other, why should they not do so ? If people claim that the force will help their marriage, they are not making a claim any less rational (or based on evidence) than those that say the same of the god of chrstians, jews, muslims, hindus, ...
The churches like to give us the idea that, somehow, they ''own'' the concept of marriage. People had been getting married years before the churches brought the idea of religion into it.
Re:It's just a contract (Score:5, Insightful)
What business do religions have with marriage? Marriage is simply a legal agreement between two people that carries certain benefits and obligations. Why do religions keep insisting that they are somehow empowered to decide who can get married and how? And if some religions are allowed to conduct marriages, then why not let every religion do it? It's not like any of them are more 'real' then the others.
Re:Definitions. (Score:4, Insightful)
It all comes down to what 'religious' means legally. It's hardly a new problem. There are many people now who still hold to some religious belief but openly reject organised religion, and many more who are a member of a group most would call religious but refuse to consider themselves as such. There's even a group within Christianity who refuse to call themselves 'Christian' as they believe the term has become broadened to the point of losing all meaning, and instead call themselves 'Christ-followers.' These things really screw with survey attempts.
It's tricky trying to pin down in law something that is in the process of rapid change.
Rapid change, or a constant shell game since the dawn of time? (which was scripted by the way, ref. Genesis)
This is nothing more than religion being rewarded every bit of karma it has ever brought upon this world. Go figure it's a statistical clusterfuck. Mirrors the concept itself.
Re:I think it's disrespectful (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that like it's not feasible, from a religious perspective, that the concepts behind the Star Wars universe were divine inspiration bestowed upon mankind by some supernatural Force.
That is, after all, no different to the root source of religious "knowledge" quoted by most (if not all) religions. The only difference is that other religions generally started with oral traditions and writing books, rather than going straight to cinema.