Strict adherence to doctrine.

ren wrote:

Brenna wrote:

ren wrote: it explicitly says the death penalty is such a cruel punishment.

A (totjo) jedi who supports the death penalty, to me is as a Jedi as a chirstian who worships satan is christian. Many things in the doctrine are subject to interpretation, some purposefully so, this is not one of them.

Yes, but who made that decision? Someone who's interpretation of torture and cruel punishment includes the death penalty.

That person would be Br. John, founder of the order.

As Br. John would tell you he is only one vote on the Council, and is always on the look out for himself falling to "Founders Syndrome"... He is not (nor are any of the rest of us) infallible...

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

See, I read that as:

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, [strike] including[/strike] such as, but not limited to the death penalty.

I dont feel that the Death Penalty is cruel or unusual punishment...

We have had folks leave TOTJO based on the actions of the Council, where they thought the actions were not "Jedi-Like"...

We have had folks leave based on the doctrine, once broke down to themselves...

If this was to be pushed, I would call for a vote of the membership, and should it become a point I couldnt have (my belief that the DP it is ok,), I guess I would have to excuse myself from Council, at a minimum...

Perhaps we need to reevaluate that sentence?

Instead of:

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

Make it:

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment.

Sorry to derail, lol....

But we are talking about strict adherence, lol...

Brenna wrote: Im starting a new thread because this one was interesting and definitely about to derail.

I have an odd relationship with the doctrine, and while I dont "ignore" any parts of it, there are some that I don't agree with or cant reconcile myself with at this point.

The discussion about cherry picking has been touched on before, but I thought it worth going over again because I think it brings up another important conversation.

Mistaking the structure and doctrine of religion for the "thing".

If I do not adhere to the doctrine strictly, am I still a Jedi?

I don't know that there can be strict adherence to Jedi Doctrine since there isn't one. There's TotJO doctrine, which might make you a "bad Jedi" of this Temple. That said, I want to complicate even that because our doctrine is not a singular interpretation. More than once I've seen people go on and on about orthodoxy and orthopraxis. The Temple attempts to guide people spiritually so that they may act rightly. The Doctrine that our Temple has gives us ideas for and use to try to come up with what is the right thing to do.

Jestor wrote: See, I read that as:

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, [strike] including[/strike] such as, but not limited to the death penalty.

I dont feel that the Death Penalty is cruel or unusual punishment....

I kind of see that though as your interpretation... my [strike]interpretation[/strike] opinion is that death penalty is a cruel punishment.. and as such I don't approve of it. Both of us are Jedi, both of us have the same doctrine.. but when do we change it? Do we change it at all? Or do we accept that interpretation is going to happen, regardless of the words on the page.

Edan wrote:

Jestor wrote: See, I read that as:

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, [strike] including[/strike] such as, but not limited to the death penalty.

I dont feel that the Death Penalty is cruel or unusual punishment....

I kind of see that though as your interpretation... my [strike]interpretation[/strike] opinion is that death penalty is a cruel punishment.. and as such I don't approve of it. Both of us are Jedi, both of us have the same doctrine.. but when do we change it? Do we change it at all? Or do we accept that interpretation is going to happen, regardless of the words on the page.

It will get changed when someone feels it is important enough to define...

All changes happen that way...

Personal changes happen when we are not happy with ourselves in some manner...

Societal changes happen when enough numbers feel an issue needs addressed...

Thus far, few have commented, on this being a sticking point... :lol:...

Cabur Senaar wrote: To not bring it up strikes me as dishonest and, perhaps, cowardly. Certainly, no one is served by taking vows to hold up a body of teachings with which one does not agree.

There are many things at the Temple I'd like to see improved.

One of these is that I feel the first oath is misplaced--I think it comes too early in the process to really be entered into with full knowledge of what you're in for. I feel the current placement of the simple oath comes before we've had a full immersion into what it means to be a Jedi--we're asking people to adhere to a doctrine they aren't fully familiar with. That's always bothered me quite a lot. I did it, because that's what the process is, but I didn't enjoy it.

Another is that we (and I'm speaking collectively here) have a fascination with both sides of the doctrine coin. We want people to sign on the dotted line with it, agree with the "Jedi Believe" statements (and get concerned if they don't, like the thread on the death penalty, or other posts in this thread), but we don't want to nail down what a Jedi is--definitely--or what they believe, in any other instance. I think we should have a a sit down sometime and discuss this, or come to terms with the idea that organizational doctrine and personal belief don't have to intersect for someone to hold both.

As an example, I am pro-life for religious reasons; I think that the sanctity of human life extends to the unborn. However, when I vote, discuss law, or protest, I come off as pro-choice. It isn't because I've suddenly changed my stance, but rather that I realize that the overarching position and my personal position are (and in this case should be) different, because I cannot personally oversee every instance in which these laws would be in use. Even if I could, I'm still fallible, so nobody should ever let me.

Placement of the oath is under discussion...

Adder wrote: They do not have to take the Oath to learn about, consider, immerse into what it means to be a Jedi, or adhere to the doctrine do they? I didn't think so, rather it's just required to join this registered religious entity (church) officially. Unless you taking the Oath actually was integral to the experience of immersion, in which case that is a good thing I think

My answer got really off-topic, so I put my response to you here .

I encourage everyone, of every rank, to read it.

Edit: Jestor's reply was typed and posted while I was still working on mine, so at the time I created the new thread, I had not seen his reply. That said, I know this has been a concern of others in the past, and that it has been under discussion. My new post is for informational purposes, not to attempt to hurry or circumvent the process.

Jestor wrote:

ren wrote:

Brenna wrote:

ren wrote: it explicitly says the death penalty is such a cruel punishment.

A (totjo) jedi who supports the death penalty, to me is as a Jedi as a chirstian who worships satan is christian. Many things in the doctrine are subject to interpretation, some purposefully so, this is not one of them.

Yes, but who made that decision? Someone who's interpretation of torture and cruel punishment includes the death penalty.

That person would be Br. John, founder of the order.

As Br. John would tell you he is only one vote on the Council, and is always on the look out for himself falling to "Founders Syndrome"... He is not (nor are any of the rest of us) infallible...

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

See, I read that as:

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, [strike] including[/strike] such as, but not limited to the death penalty.

I dont feel that the Death Penalty is cruel or unusual punishment...

We have had folks leave TOTJO based on the actions of the Council, where they thought the actions were not "Jedi-Like"...

We have had folks leave based on the doctrine, once broke down to themselves...

If this was to be pushed, I would call for a vote of the membership, and should it become a point I couldnt have (my belief that the DP it is ok,), I guess I would have to excuse myself from Council, at a minimum...

Perhaps we need to reevaluate that sentence?

Instead of:

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

Make it:

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment.

Sorry to derail, lol....

But we are talking about strict adherence, lol...

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

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?

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.