Strict adherence to doctrine.

steamboat28 wrote:

ren wrote: Actually, what it meant Jestor, was that totjo was founded around that principle.

TOTJO was literally and specifically founded against the principle of the death penalty?

Citation, please?

Jedi Believe:

We adopt this statement with gratitude from and to http://ReligiousTolerance.org



In the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support, and caring simply because they are human.

In working towards a culture that is relatively free of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin, degree of ability, age, etc.

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment including the death penalty. (1)

In the importance of democracy within religious, political and other structures.

In the separation of church and state; and the freedoms of speech, association, and expression. (2)

That the systems of truth in the field of morals, ethics, and religious belief that we have studied are not absolute: they vary by culture, by religion, and over time.

In the generally positive influence that most religions have had on their followers and on society. (3)

In the importance of individual believers determining evil influences and policies within their chosen faith group, and advocate for their correction.

In the importance of education. We believe that people are not truly educated unless they have studied at least the world's major religions and ethical systems. They need to learn of the good and bad impacts they have had on society. (4)

In a just society with laws grounded in reason, compassion, health and human rights and in which fears and prejudices have no part.



Footnotes and Exceptions:

(1) However, like the rest of North American society, we have not been able to reach a consensus about when human life, in the form of a spermatozoon and an ovum, becomes a human person deserving civil rights.
(2) However we have not been able to reach a consensus about the age at which an individual should fully enjoy these freedoms. We also recognize that some of these freedoms should have limits. For example, we do not feel that, in most cases, parents should be allowed to let their children die if medical treatment will assure a cure. We do not feel that individuals should be free to advocate genocide or yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
(3) Exceptions are a handful of destructive cults which have had an overall negative effect.
(4) They need to understand the religious sources that inspired Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, and Mother Teresa to commit their life to the alleviation of human suffering. But they also need to learn the shadow side of religion: how religious beliefs have contributed to hatred, intolerance, oppression, discrimination, as well as mass murders and genocides in such places as Nazi Germany, Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Sudan and countless other countries.

ren wrote: Besides, if a court of law, after "catching" someone, exercising complete control over that individual's life, can find no better thing to do than have that individual killed, then I think it is being cruel. In comparison I think someone who kills someone else during, say, a robbery, has the moral high ground.

Are you suggesting, then, that everyone--regardless of personality, upbringing, mental state--can be reformed by current psychological techniques and locking them away in a tiny, tiny room after stripping them of all rights and privacy?

ren wrote: We adopt this statement with gratitude from and to http://ReligiousTolerance.org



In the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support, and caring simply because they are human.

In working towards a culture that is relatively free of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin, degree of ability, age, etc.

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment including the death penalty. (1)

In the importance of democracy within religious, political and other structures.

In the separation of church and state; and the freedoms of speech, association, and expression. (2)

That the systems of truth in the field of morals, ethics, and religious belief that we have studied are not absolute: they vary by culture, by religion, and over time.

In the generally positive influence that most religions have had on their followers and on society. (3)

In the importance of individual believers determining evil influences and policies within their chosen faith group, and advocate for their correction.

In the importance of education. We believe that people are not truly educated unless they have studied at least the world's major religions and ethical systems. They need to learn of the good and bad impacts they have had on society. (4)

In a just society with laws grounded in reason, compassion, health and human rights and in which fears and prejudices have no part.



Footnotes and Exceptions:

(1) However, like the rest of North American society, we have not been able to reach a consensus about when human life, in the form of a spermatozoon and an ovum, becomes a human person deserving civil rights.
(2) However we have not been able to reach a consensus about the age at which an individual should fully enjoy these freedoms. We also recognize that some of these freedoms should have limits. For example, we do not feel that, in most cases, parents should be allowed to let their children die if medical treatment will assure a cure. We do not feel that individuals should be free to advocate genocide or yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
(3) Exceptions are a handful of destructive cults which have had an overall negative effect.
(4) They need to understand the religious sources that inspired Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, and Mother Teresa to commit their life to the alleviation of human suffering. But they also need to learn the shadow side of religion: how religious beliefs have contributed to hatred, intolerance, oppression, discrimination, as well as mass murders and genocides in such places as Nazi Germany, Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Sudan and countless other countries.

So, because TOTJO cites a declaration taken wholecloth (save the obvious exceptions at the bottom, which entirely contradict the point you're attempting to make) from another organization instead of deciding among themselves on one that actually fits TOTJO more closely than an off-the-rack suit, that means that TOTJO was necessarily created on the foundation against the death penalty?

Also, the word "relatively" up there implies something other than the complete abolishment of discrimination. Therefore, according to the words you just cited, in theory, Jedi are totally able to be discriminatory themselves, as long as the world itself is "relatively free" from such animosity.

Actually i have stated on multiple occasions that people who arent safe with the rest of society don't necessarily need to be kept in the conditions they are currently held. I think they can have meaningful lives whilst part of an "incarceration" system.

besides I believe suicide should be legal, it is freedom of self-determination. You can kill yourself, you can't kill other people. Well that's how I think anyway

ren wrote: Actually i have stated on multiple occasions that people who arent safe with the rest of society don't necessarily need to be kept in the conditions they are currently held. I think they can have meaningful lives whilst part of an "incarceration" system.

A system that offers no hope of rehabilitation, is not internally safe, and costs ridiculous sums of money on economies which are routinely overspread as it is.

Life in prison, to me, seems both more expensive and more cruel than the death penalty.

steamboat28 wrote:

ren wrote: We adopt this statement with gratitude from and to http://ReligiousTolerance.org



In the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support, and caring simply because they are human.

In working towards a culture that is relatively free of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin, degree of ability, age, etc.

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment including the death penalty. (1)

In the importance of democracy within religious, political and other structures.

In the separation of church and state; and the freedoms of speech, association, and expression. (2)

That the systems of truth in the field of morals, ethics, and religious belief that we have studied are not absolute: they vary by culture, by religion, and over time.

In the generally positive influence that most religions have had on their followers and on society. (3)

In the importance of individual believers determining evil influences and policies within their chosen faith group, and advocate for their correction.

In the importance of education. We believe that people are not truly educated unless they have studied at least the world's major religions and ethical systems. They need to learn of the good and bad impacts they have had on society. (4)

In a just society with laws grounded in reason, compassion, health and human rights and in which fears and prejudices have no part.



Footnotes and Exceptions:

(1) However, like the rest of North American society, we have not been able to reach a consensus about when human life, in the form of a spermatozoon and an ovum, becomes a human person deserving civil rights.
(2) However we have not been able to reach a consensus about the age at which an individual should fully enjoy these freedoms. We also recognize that some of these freedoms should have limits. For example, we do not feel that, in most cases, parents should be allowed to let their children die if medical treatment will assure a cure. We do not feel that individuals should be free to advocate genocide or yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
(3) Exceptions are a handful of destructive cults which have had an overall negative effect.
(4) They need to understand the religious sources that inspired Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, and Mother Teresa to commit their life to the alleviation of human suffering. But they also need to learn the shadow side of religion: how religious beliefs have contributed to hatred, intolerance, oppression, discrimination, as well as mass murders and genocides in such places as Nazi Germany, Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Sudan and countless other countries.

So, because TOTJO cites a declaration taken wholecloth (save the obvious exceptions at the bottom, which entirely contradict the point you're attempting to make) from another organization instead of deciding among themselves on one that actually fits TOTJO more closely than an off-the-rack suit, that means that TOTJO was necessarily created on the foundation against the death penalty?

Also, the word "relatively" up there implies something other than the complete abolishment of discrimination. Therefore, according to the words you just cited, in theory, Jedi are totally able to be discriminatory themselves, as long as the world itself is "relatively free" from such animosity.

Well the original statement is no longer in use, but that's where the current "jedi believe" comes from. Point is, Someone who finds the death penalty cruel created a jedi order, it's been its official policy to reject the death penalty for longer than you've been a member... If you lost your faith you could be "helped", if you never had it it could be argued you never took the oath in good faith and lose membership. The council did this recently.

steamboat28 wrote:

ren wrote: Actually i have stated on multiple occasions that people who arent safe with the rest of society don't necessarily need to be kept in the conditions they are currently held. I think they can have meaningful lives whilst part of an "incarceration" system.

A system that offers no hope of rehabilitation, is not internally safe, and costs ridiculous sums of money on economies which are routinely overspread as it is.

Life in prison, to me, seems both more expensive and more cruel than the death penalty.

How about giving them the choice then? The rest of their lives in some kind of prison or the death penalty?

ren wrote: Well the original statement is no longer in use, but that's where the current "jedi believe" comes from. Point is, Someone who finds the death penalty cruel created a jedi order, it's been its official policy to reject the death penalty for longer than you've been a member... If you lost your faith you could be "helped", if you never had it it could be argued you never took the oath in good faith and lose membership. The council did this recently.

And nowhere that I've been able to find does TOTJO demand that individual members reflect official TOTJO policy. And, the moment it does, all that "find your own path" bulls**t we keep spoonfeeding the newbies will turn immediately into hypocrisy. I've discussed this in at least seven other threads since this summer. It has been one of my recurring themes.

Say it with me, nah:
Individual members do not have to fall in line with every jot and tittle of TOTJO official policy or doctrine in order to continue to be considered TOTJO Jedi, because there is currently no rule, law, or precedent in place that supports the creation of such intellectual zombies, or expelling those who do not comply.

Oh, and sidenote? Don't get salty over membership length. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the latecomers haven't exactly been slouching in the "making this a better place" department, and I seldom see certain members of the "old farts" club doing half the work some of the fresh apprentices and knights are doing. It's insulting, it's degrading, and it shows the ignorance of the speaker when they assume that people who haven't been here as long are somehow either irrelevant or inferior to other folks.

ren wrote: Besides, if a court of law, after "catching" someone, exercising complete control over that individual's life, can find no better thing to do than have that individual killed, then I think it is being cruel. In comparison I think someone who kills someone else during, say, a robbery, has the moral high ground.

This just reminded me a little of the "whose responsibility is it" thread.

Regardless of your position on the death penalty, whose responsibility is it to maintain a criminal deemed too dangerous to be allowed free? The law abiding tax payer who was the victim? An ironic sort of justice.

I was thinking also of your comment in the Breast cancer thread. You dont like your tax dollars maintaining women only wards? How many people do you think like their tax dollars going to keeping people like Charles Manson fed, housed and cared for in a standard better than the average old age home? If my calculations of the average cost of maintaining a prisoner are correct, excluding the incredibly fancy psych team he would be working with, its around $4,050,000.00 to date. (this was edited to reflect cost per inmate on death row rather than average cost per inmate)

I think its immoral to use that money to sustain the life of someone who willingly and somewhat gleefully arranged murders without remorse, when that money could be spent on things that desperately need it, like education or health programmes.



Side note.... Steams been here two years longer than you

It costs far more to sentence someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life. Even Fox News, Fox News, said, "Every time a killer is sentenced to die, a school closes."

"[A] death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/just-cost-death-penalty-killer-state-budgets/