Where is the line between freedom of speech...

I'm not sure that there is anything that we "please" to believe. Beliefs aren't choices. We come to them based on what is presented to us. There are things that we seek, as there are those things that we simply hope are true ...

So, how are beliefs not a choice?

People do not choose beliefs simply on what is presented to them, as there is also the hope you mentioned. People choose to hope, people choose to believe, and not to believe.

People choose to change there beliefs, and not always because something was presented to them. In fact, here, many deny evidence and have claimed a preferred ignorance to things.

At ToTJo, pretty much anyone can be a Jedi, as its always specifically stated that such a thing is subjective and that subjectiveness is beyond contestation

Every religion is a journey of discovery. The difference here is that each person is allowed to follow their own journey, with the Temple assisting in a facilitating role, where other religions prescribe the journey for you.

Just because we do not follow the textbook formula for religion, doesn't mean that it is not a religion. I believe the term would be "unorthodox"

Even unorthodox religions have the same formula, they may simply have less rules in one area or another, but there is a basic premise.

Following your own journey is all well and good, but this is exactly why it isnt a religion, at best its a social networking platform for a like-minded buzz word, that word being Jedi of course, and like any Facebook page or group ,you like it will facilitate as you say, in the same fashion. Information, articles, lessons, etc

Alan wrote: The working definition of a religion in my World Religions college course is from Invitations to World Religions, Brodd, Little, et al, Oxford University Press.

"Religion is a cultural system integrating teachings, practices, modes of experience, institutions, and artistic expression that relates people to what they perceive to be transcendent" (page 9).

I can't find the quote right now but Ninian Smart in "The Religious Experience" I think says that arguably there is no such thing as "religion" there are only the "religions". The outline of his point is below:

What he means by this is that "religion" is a term given from the "outside" by people trying to classify what they think constitutes Christianity (or whichever religion) and then calling it Christianity.

The "religions" on the other hand are instead that which people decide to call their faith (or whatever it is). This is essentially switching the focus from an outsider look in and saying "this is the name of what you're doing" to the religious person themselves saying "this is the name I give to what I'm doing".

What does this mean for what is a religion or not a religion? It means that what the person is doing is a religion if they believe that what they are doing is religious. Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophical way of life? That depends on whether the Buddhist considers what they are doing to be religious or not.

Alan wrote: The working definition of a religion in my World Religions college course is from Invitations to World Religions, Brodd, Little, et al, Oxford University Press.

"Religion is a cultural system integrating teachings, practices, modes of experience, institutions, and artistic expression that relates people to what they perceive to be transcendent" (page 9).

I read something earlier today that reminded me of this so I thought to add it, because I found it interesting.

In How Buddhism Began (1997) (p2) Richard Gombrich laments that much of the work in the field of comparative religious studies is a waste, because much of it is searching for a "correct" definition of religion. He cites Karl Poppoer and also the "essentialist fallacy" which is the assertion that definitions can add to our knowledge of facts. This is because of the false belief in essentialism that 'there are authoritative sources of knowledge' (Popper).