Haruhiism is a legitimate religion

1) I'll grant the first point in that I can see where you would interpret what I meant in the manner in which you did. That statement was more intended to be a joke along the lines of: "This is crazy, even compared to regular religion." I apologize if that didn't come across.2) You state that Scientology "would have done those things in the past as well if they existed..." but that's irrelevant, Scientology (and this isn't a defense for the actions of the Church of Scientology) hasn't been around long enough to do the same sort of quantitative or qualitative harms that "big religion" has, however this is still off-topic.3) While I personally find the idea of a Jedi member of Parliament to be the funniest thing I've heard in some time, that doesn't change the fact that while the origins of Scientology, the Jedi Church, and Haruhiism may be all rooted in fiction, one could make the argument that all religion is based in fiction from certain standpoints. An Atheist would certainly make that argument, but there is a weighted difference in absurdity between the Jedi Church and Haruhiism, much in the same way there is a weighted difference in absurdity between Christianity and Scientology (but that's a separate debate entirely), the issue comes from whether or not Haruhiism fits the standards that society, through language, have set for religion, which I believe I have demonstrated it doesn't. Also, to point out two things, Jamie Reed (the politician in question) also claimed to be a "good Methodist"[1] so I believe that his statement about being a Jedi, while still hilarious, ought to be taken with a grain of salt, and that (While I cringe to use Wikipedia as a source, I must beg forgiveness because I'm still doing it) no country has officially recognized Jediism as an official religion[2].4) I, being somewhat familiar with the Haruhi Suzumiya series, certainly see where you come from in arguing that it's chaotic. But with that having been said, with an understanding that Haruhiism is integrally chaotic, and granting that we can assume the actions of Haruhi as God would be similar to the actions of Haruhi in the source material in terms of rearranging states of matter and reality, the belief in Haruhi seems to turn into a matter Ontology[3] as opposed to religious belief. If you grant my point that Haruhiism, as "religion" has no set practices, you seem to depart from the realm of religious belief and practice. Your point about my classification of Haruhiism as a "mock religion" doesn't hold water because of your statement that it doesn't conform with standards. If we wish to employ language, there must be standards for what does and does not "fit the bill" when referring to a word. Currently, as you've granted, Haruhiism doesn't fit the standards of our current definition of religion, end of story. While that could certainly change with time, the fact of the matter is that currently, Haruhiism can't be classified as true religion. While I certainly see where you're coming from in saying that my having pointed that out is "cheap", it doesn't change the fact that it's true, and thereby a "real argument". You raise a point in my definition of legitimate but don't say anything substantive so I'll assume you accept it while raising the point you did. With that in mind, you must logically admit that, as per the resolution (I'm assuming it's "Haruhiism is a legitimate religion" because it's never explicitly stated) Haruhiism isn't a legitimate religion after having applied the definition of legitimate and through your own statement that "it doesn't conform with existing religions and standards". I am in no way attempting to dispute the potential value of the ideas of Haruhiism, I personally believe that the world needs a little more chaos to take it's mind off some of the darker problems plaguing it, but even then I would argue that it doesn't meet that which must be met for the status of true religion. I would compare the categorizing of Haruhiism to the attempt to redefine the word Santorum, something done through the attempted popularization of the desired meaning. While many people may certainly associate the word Santorum with it's "new definition", the language hasn't changed to reflect that and until it does, it's not a legitimate change.I also have a problem with your claim that I need to prove that it isn't a legitimate religion. You're making the case that it's a legitimate religion, therefore, as the affirmative, the burden of proof lays on you. You've certainly attempted to rebut my points, commendably so, but the fact that you've raised no original arguments aside from stating that my argument is "cheap" de-legitimizes your case.Thank you for a speedy response, and I look forward to (hopefully :D) another one.1) http://www.publications.parliament.uk... (it's a little above half-way down the page)2) http://en.wikipedia.org...3) http://dictionary.reference.com...