2011 Census enumerator edited 'my religion' when collecting my form

MagicSean · 13-01-2012 6:00pm

28064212 wrote: »

No it's not. It's a body of people that are supposed to deliver an impartial verdict. A jury member that acts on their personal feelings about a defendant is not acting correctly

Incorrect. The OP stated that he put it down as an "alternative to a typical vote abstention or vote spoiling". So the OP believed that Jedi represented his view on religion, even though it's not a conventional religion. Exactly like an Atheist putting down Atheism

The op believed it represented his opposition to the question, not his religion.

dvpower · 13-01-2012 6:02pm

MagicSean wrote: »

If you were charged with making a false declaration and it went to court, do you think a judge or jury would accept any of that? The declaration states that you have filled out the form to the best of your knowledge and belief. You can joke about it and soapbox all you like but it would be quite easy to prove that someone does not in fact worship a trademark, especially if they cannot even decide on any solid point about the "religion".

If I was charged with making a false declaration, I wouldn't have to do anything at all.

The procesution would have to prove that I made a false declaration. To do this they would have to prove that I am not a member of the Jedi faith. Since there is no Jedi faith authority, this is going to be very difficult. What the Jedi faith is and what constitutes membership is subjective.

You might reasonably argue that there is no Jedi religion at all, so anyone making the declaration is making a false declaration, but for some reason you seem to accept that Jediism is indeed a religion.

If you were the prosecutor, how would you go about proving that the OP is not of the Jedi religion?

MagicSean wrote: »

The op has stated in the opening post that he did in order to create a spoiled vote of sorts. So he clearly does not worship a Jedi religion. As such he filled out an answer he knew was not true and in doing so broke the law.

I think we established early on that there is no formal entry requirements to the Jedi religion, no central authority, no membership list. Anyone can be a Jedi just by asserting it to be so.
At the moment the OP declared himself as a Jedi on the census form, he became a Jedi - it couldn't be clearer.

13-01-2012 6:02pm

MagicSean wrote: »

The op believed it represented his opposition to the question, not his religion.

So someone who puts Atheist down because they believe it to be opposing the question is prosecutable, but someone who is mistaken is not?

MagicSean · 13-01-2012 6:03pm

dvpower wrote: »

If I was charged with making a false declaration, I wouldn't have to do anything at all.

The procesution would have to prove that I made a false declaration. To do this they would have to prove that I am not a member of the Jedi faith. Since there is no Jedi faith authority, this is going to be very difficult. What the Jedi faith is and what constitutes membership is subjective.

You might reasonably argue that there is no Jedi religion at all, so anyone making the declaration is making a false declaration, but for some reason you seem to accept that Jediism is indeed a religion.

If you were the prosecutor, how would you go about proving that the OP is not of the Jedi religion?

I think we established early on that there is no formal entry requirements to the Jedi religion, no central authority, no membership list. Anyone can be a Jedi just by asserting it to be so.
At the moment the OP declared himself as a Jedi on the census form, he became a Jedi - it couldn't be clearer.

So you are now accepting it is an offence but that it is impossible to prove.

28064212 wrote: »

So someone who puts Atheist down because they believe it to be opposing the question is prosecutable, but someone who is mistaken is not?

Correct.

dvpower · 13-01-2012 6:06pm

MagicSean wrote: »

So you are now accepting it is an offence but that it is impossible to prove.

The warped logic:rolleyes:

There exists an offence, but this doesn't fall under it.

13-01-2012 6:06pm

MagicSean wrote: »

So you are now accepting it is an offence but that it is impossible to prove.

Correct.

Except you haven't established a lie, only that the person has a different interpretation of acceptable answers.

dvpower · 13-01-2012 6:06pm

MagicSean wrote: »

The op believed it represented his opposition to the question, not his religion.

Where did he say it wasn't his religion?

Tayla · 13-01-2012 6:07pm

MagicSean wrote: »

So you are now accepting it is an offence but that it is impossible to prove.

Where did he say it was an offence?

MagicSean · 13-01-2012 6:19pm

I don't think we are going anywhere new here so I'll leave it with this.

It is an offence to put down an answer that you know to be false. The op said he was Jedi because

gj777 wrote: »

To me the Jedi thing is a kind of alternative to a typical vote abstention or vote spoiling,

I believe this clearly shows that he did not truthfully believe he was of the Jedi religion but that he wished to make a political statement against the question format and as such he put an answer which was not true.

I accept that it would be difficult to prove this in a court but that does not change the fact that it was an offence in this case.

I also accept that there are people who honestly believe themselves to follow a religion known as Jedi, even if they are the only person in their own particular faction, but in the ops case he does not honestly believe he is of the religion "Jedi" and so his statement is dishonest.

dvpower · 13-01-2012 6:34pm

MagicSean wrote: »

I don't think we are going anywhere new here so I'll leave it with this.

It is an offence to put down an answer that you know to be false. The op said he was Jedi because

I believe this clearly shows that he did not truthfully believe he was of the Jedi religion but that he wished to make a political statement against the question format and as such he put an answer which was not true.

I accept that it would be difficult to prove this in a court but that does not change the fact that it was an offence in this case.

I also accept that there are people who honestly believe themselves to follow a religion known as Jedi, even if they are the only person in their own particular faction, but in the ops case he does not honestly believe he is of the religion "Jedi" and so his statement is dishonest.

You are missing the point entirely.
Not only did the OP clearly explain what he thinks the 'Jedi thing' is. He also clearly agrees with the Jedi thing and he put that down on the census form. The central church of Jedi (which doesn't exist) may not agree with his particular slant on Jediism, but everyone knows that it is the breakaway Jedi churches that are the true gaurdians of the force.

Perhaps you're missing the point because you think religion to be something important and can't get into the mindset of someone who doesn't consider it important at all and as such can easily identify themselves as Jedi? Its not that unusual really. I know people who can easily identity as catholic, yet they disagree with the rcc on pretty much every issue, they don't attend church or follow any of the rules and their actual beliefs are at complete variance with catholic dogma.

On the other hand, maybe there are people out there somewhere who put down on the census form that they travel 4 miles to work, but are now deeply concerned that they have committed an offence because they measured it again and it turned out to be 4.1 miles.

zuroph · 13-01-2012 6:35pm

MagicSean wrote: »

I don't think we are going anywhere new here so I'll leave it with this.

It is an offence to put down an answer that you know to be false. The op said he was Jedi because

I believe this clearly shows that he did not truthfully believe he was of the Jedi religion but that he wished to make a political statement against the question format and as such he put an answer which was not true.

I accept that it would be difficult to prove this in a court but that does not change the fact that it was an offence in this case.

I also accept that there are people who honestly believe themselves to follow a religion known as Jedi, even if they are the only person in their own particular faction, but in the ops case he does not honestly believe he is of the religion "Jedi" and so his statement is dishonest.

All fair enough, but that wasnt the issue the OP brought to the discussion. The enumerator had no right to edit any answers on the sheet without permission, its not their job.

MagicSean · 13-01-2012 6:45pm

dvpower wrote: »

You are missing the point entirely.
Not only did the OP clearly explain what he thinks the 'Jedi thing' is. He also clearly agrees with the Jedi thing and he put that down on the census form. The central church of Jedi (which doesn't exist) may not agree with his particular slant on Jediism, but everyone knows that it is the breakaway Jedi churches that are the true gaurdians of the force.

Perhaps you're missing the point because you think religion to be something important and can't get into the mindset of someone who doesn't consider it important at all and as such can easily identify themselves as Jedi? Its not that unusual really. I know people who can easily identity as catholic, yet they disagree with the rcc on pretty much every issue, they don't attend church or follow any of the rules and their actual beliefs are at complete variance with catholic dogma.

On the other hand, maybe there are people out there somewhere who put down on the census form that they travel 4 miles to work, but are now deeply concerned that they have committed an offence because they measured it again and it turned out to be 4.1 miles.

Maybe we just disagree on what a reasonable person would consider a religion. To me, a single political view could not reasonably be considered a religion by anyone. But I guess that is where we disagree.

Our man in Havana · 13-01-2012 8:06pm

Ok, lets say a person put down atheist and the enumerater knew the person in question was down the church every Sunday gnawing the alter rails would that be an offence?