Jediism

In France, there are no official religions nor those that are recognised officially other than by their own acolytes. One of the most adhered to republican values is the secularism (la laïcité) whereby the State is kept quite critically separate from any organised confessional agency, whether this be 'mainstream' or otherwise. On the other hand, we tend not to pass laws that are restrictive to personal religious inclinations, except those that would pose a threat to the public security.

Religion, albeit commonly considered a group endeavour, is a very personal interaction with one's own experience of Life. Groups or people may profess to believe the same things, however the personal experience of 'linking back' to something transcendental is what the human propensity toward religion developed in us for. Our religious motivations are the result of our affective development and our capacity to reason, which sometimes support one another yet often conflict. The inclination toward spiritual exploration, one may say, is our way of reconciling these conflicts. It works pretty well if we can overcome - or at least minimise - Reason's unreasonable desire for certainty. As it were, one's religion cannot be any more or less "official" than one's appendix, one's left foot or one's blood type. In other words, if one participates in a religion because it is an 'official' one, then it is not practising a religion at all ...

It is the desire for certainty (that we can't have) that one finds mostly at the root of all this nastiness. We make things 'official' in order to justify them, to give them credibility ... to make them reasonable. Spiritual authority that becomes 'official' imposes what ought to come from explorations of one's own sensibilities as a human being experiencing life in a particular environment with other living beings and in a particular time. That only results in frustrating the person, as it adds another conflict to be reconciled in the hegemonic stew we call Society.

Even the Jedi who scream for 'recognition' of our Faith need to take a good critical look at what they're asking for. It is like trying to convince others to recognise a particular hair or eye colour as the "official" one. It won't make any difference -- that'll not bring on the certainty that is so desperately craved ...

I've posted this before, about Australian legal view of religion here, but couldn't find where I posted it. It's an interesting read if you can do so with an imaginary wig and wooden hammer....

Freedom of religion, the paradigm freedom of conscience, is of the essence of a free society. The chief function in the law of a definition of religion is to mark out an area within which a person subject to the law is free to believe and to act in accordance with his belief without legal restraint.

Because religious status confers such financial and other advantages, the emergence of new religions is bound to be regarded with scepticism.

An endeavour to define religion for legal purposes gives rise to peculiar difficulties, one of which was stated by Latham C.J. in Jehovah's Witnesses Inc. at p. 123:

``It would be difficult, if not impossible, to devise a definition of religion which would satisfy the adherents of all the many and various religions which exist, or have existed, in the world.''

The absence of a definition which is universally satisfying points to a more fundamental difficulty affecting the adoption of a definition for legal purposes.

A definition cannot be adopted merely because it would satisfy the majority of the community or because it corresponds with a concept currently accepted by that majority. The development of the law towards complete religious liberty and religious equality to which Rich J. referred in Jehovah's Witnesses Inc. (at p. 149) would be subverted and the guarantees in sec. 116 of the Constitution would lose their character as a bastion of freedom if religion were so defined as to exclude from its ambit minority religions out of the main streams of religious thought.

Though religious freedom and religious equality are beneficial to all true religions, minority religions - not well established and accepted - stand in need of especial protection (cf. per Latham C.J. in Jehovah's Witnesses Inc. at p. 124). It is more accurate to say that protection is required for the adherents of religions, not for the religions themselves. Protection is not accorded to safeguard the tenets of each religion; no such protection can be given by the law, and it would be contradictory of the law to protect at once the tenets of different religions which are incompatible with one another. Protection is accorded to preserve the dignity and freedom of each man so that he may adhere to any religion of his choosing or to none. The freedom of religion being equally conferred on all, the variety of religious beliefs which are within the area of legal immunity is not restricted.

These considerations, tending against the adoption of a narrow definition, may suggest the rejection of any definition which would exclude from the category of religion the beliefs, practices and observances of any group who assert their beliefs, practices and observances to be religious. But such an assertion cannot be adopted as a legal criterion. The mantle of immunity would soon be in tatters if it were wrapped around beliefs, practices and observances of every kind whenever a group of adherents chose to call them a religion (cf. United States v. Kuch 288 F. Supp. 439 (1968)). A more objective criterion is required.

The derivation of all the common indicia of religions is a task which a Court cannot hope to perform by a detailed analysis of all acknowledged religions. Indeed, Courts are not equipped to make such a study, and the acculturation of a Judge in one religious environment would impede there understanding of others. But so broad a study is not required. The relevant enquiry is to ascertain what is meant by religion as an area of legal freedom or immunity, and that enquiry looks to those essential indicia of religion which attract that freedom or immunity. It is in truth an enquiry into legal policy.

The law seeks to leave man as free as possible in conscience to respond to the abiding and fundamental problems of human existence. In all societies and in all ages man has pondered upon the explanation of the existence of the phenomenological universe, the meaning of his existence and his destiny. An understanding of these problems is furnished in part by the natural and behavioural sciences and by other humanist disciplines. They go far towards explaining the universe and its elements and the relationships between nations, groups and individuals. Many philosophies, however, go beyond the fields of these disciplines and seek to explain, in terms of a broader reality, the existence of the universe, the meaning of human life, and human destiny. For some, the natural order, known or knowable by use of man's senses and his natural reason, provides a sufficient and exhaustive solution to these great problems; for others, an adequate solution can be found only in the supernatural order, in which man may believe as a matter of faith, but which he cannot know by his senses and the reality of which he cannot demonstrate to others who do not share his faith. He may believe that his faith has been revealed or confirmed by supernatural authority or his reason alone may lead him to postulate the tenets of his faith. Faith in the supernatural, transcending reasoning about the natural order, is the stuff of religious belief.

Under our law, the State has no prophetic role in relation to religious belief; the State can neither declare supernatural truth nor determine the paths through which the human mind must search in a quest for supernatural truth. The Courts are constrained to accord freedom to faith in the supernatural for there are no means of finding upon evidence whether a postulated tenet of supernatural truth is erroneous or whether a supernatural revelation of truth has been made.

Religious belief is more than a cosmology; it is a belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle. But religious belief is not by itself a religion. Religion is also concerned, at least to some extent, with a relationship between man and the supernatural order and with supernatural influence upon his life and conduct.

Clifford Geertz, writing an ``Anthropological Study of Religion'' in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (London, 1968 vol. 13 at p. 406) concluded that:

``Whatever else religion does, it relates a view of the ultimate nature of reality to a set of ideas of how man is well advised, even obligated, to live.''

Thus religion encompasses conduct, no less than belief. Professor Max Mueller, an early scholar in comparative religion, wrote (Natural Religion (Collected Works I, 1899 at p. 169) cited by Sharpe, op. cit. at p. 39):

``When... men began to feel constrained to do what they do not like to do, or to abstain from what they would like to do, for the sake of some unknown powers which they have discovered behind the storm or the sky or the sun or the moon, then we are at last on religious ground.''

What man feels constrained to do or to abstain from doing because of his faith in the supernatural is prima facie within the area of legal immunity, for his freedom to believe would be impaired by restriction upon conduct in which he engages in giving effect to that belief. The canons of conduct which he accepts as valid for himself in order to give effect to his belief in the supernatural are no less a part of his religion than the belief itself. Conversely, unless there be a real connection between a person's belief in the supernatural and particular conduct in which that person engages, that conduct cannot itself be characterized as religious.

Most religions have a god or gods as the object of worship or reverence. However, many of the great religions have no belief in god or a supreme being in the sense of a personal deity rather than an abstract principle. Theravadan Buddhism, the Samkhya School of Hinduism and Taoism, are notable examples. Though these religions assert an ultimate principle, reality or power informing the world of matter and energy, this is an abstract conception described as unknown or incomprehensible. Idols or symbols representing it are contemplated. This meditation (rather than prayer or worship) is said to stimulate an awareness of the divine peculiar to the individual concerned.

Most religions contain a code of principles regulating the spiritual and social activities of their members. Many codes confer sacred status on activities such as eating, sexual intercourse, marriage, birth and burial. Religious codes of conduct are usually so difficult to observe that the followers constantly infringe and must undergo some penance, either spiritual or financial, to placate the god, to overcome their feelings of guilt or to maintain their place within the religion. The idea of a ``complete or absolute moral code'' is however alien to the classical forms of religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism. In those, men and women do not offend against a set of principles but against themselves - reaping the karmic consequences of their actions.

The area of legal immunity marked out by the concept of religion cannot extend to all conduct in which a person may engage in giving effect to his faith in the supernatural. The freedom to act in accordance with one's religious beliefs is not as inviolate as the freedom to believe, for general laws to preserve and protect society are not defeated by a plea of religious obligation to breach them.

We would therefore hold that, for the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion. Those criteria may vary in their comparative importance, and there may be a different intensity of belief or of acceptance of canons of conduct among religions or among the adherents to a religion. The tenets of a religion may give primacy to one particular belief or to one particular canon of conduct. Variations in emphasis may distinguish one religion from other religions, but they are irrelevant to the determination of an individual's or a group's freedom to profess and exercise the religion of his, or their, choice.

TLDR: go back and read it

So perhaps the Force in this way is unknown or incomprehensible as a whole, but awareness of it possible to the individual and it is this which constitutes the purpose of Jediism, as a religion!?