Looking for a Religion.

Why
My state's legislature has recently passed a bill which would nearly eliminate the state's role in conducting marriages. The expressed goal of this legislation is to protect the religious freedom of court clerks who have been 'forced' to oversee gay marriages. I see this legislation as extremely problematic. 20% of my state's population approves of gay marriage, according to recent surveys. In a recent federal court decision, my state was forced to lift its ban on gay marriage. My objections to this bill are twofold: it was proposed in the spirit of discrimination and it effectively breaks the separation of church and state. Since this bill, if it becomes a law, would likely result in unequal treatment under the law for atheists and members of the LGBT community, I find it prudent, in the interest of society, to become a member of a religious clergy so that I will be able to preform marriages.

Why Jediism?
Jediism seems to be a religion which has the most promise of being compatible with my current moral, ethical, and religious stances. If I am to join a religion, I want to be honest about it, not joining a joke religion or one which don't agree with. I've done some research about Jediism I have some concerns about its compatibility. I would like everyone's thoughts on the compatibility with my 'belief' system and Jediism.

What do I believe?
1. There are no gods or other supernatural forces.
2. All morality is ultimately subjective. Any moral statement of ought requires a condition to be met. (there is no "you ought to do x" only "you ought to do x if you want y". Not "You ought to obey God", only "You ought obey God if you want to go to heaven". "you ought to avoid murder if you want a flourishing society")
3. The subjective condition that I base most of my moral oughts on is promoting the flourishing of life. Life would be my ultimate force in whose interest I would choose to act. While humanity is one realization of life, it isn't the only realization.
(3a.-3d. as an applied example)
3a. One ought to avoid unnecessary extinguishing of life (in order to promote the flourishing of life).
3b. One ought to avoid causing unnecessary suffering to life forms (in order to promote the flourishing of life).
3c. (from a&b) as the most capable realization of life in our ecosystem, humanity ought to manage the ecosystem as best they can (in order to promote the flourishing of life).
3d. (from 3b and 3c, possibly 3a) (in order to promote the flourishing of life) we ought to avoid causing unnecessary harm and suffering (in the form of misuse or killing to eat) to those realizations of life which are most capable of experiencing suffering.

So what's some potential incompatibilities?
The first problem is the possibility of what others have colorfully termed "woo-woo". I believe only what can be observed and reasoned. Though I don't omit the possibility of things beyond the observable, I see no reason to believe or speculate in that for which there is no evidence. If one were to define the Force as the shared objective and goal of all life: to flourish, then sure, I can believe in the Force. Likewise, death would simply mean a re-intigration with other forms of life, so that bit of the Jedi code is explained away. I am not what one could honestly call a spiritual individual.

My valuing of life notwithstanding, I am a proponent of the death penalty. I believe there comes a point when reform of an individual is no longer feasible and that it is in the interest of society to eliminate that individual. Sure, every system of capital punishment could be improved, but from a pragmatic standpoint supporting a dangerous and deranged individual for an indefinite period is not feasible.

Lastly, I remember reading that my full legal name would be publicly published if I were to join the ToJO. I have maintained an almost invisible internet footprint over the years and I do not wish to compromise that. It is a tactic which has proven valuable in my career, as if I were more open about myself then the more prejudiced members of the school board might decide I ought not be a teacher in their district. My religious views, as well as other elements such as my identity within the LGBT spectrum, are divergent enough from the general population that it's prudent to keep quiet about myself. Is this public publishing something which could be waived?

I would appreciate hearing your thoughts, thanks!

Sipiri wrote: Why
... Since this bill, if it becomes a law, would likely result in unequal treatment under the law for atheists and members of the LGBT community, I find it prudent, in the interest of society, to become a member of a religious clergy so that I will be able to preform marriages.

So your way of opposing the bill is surrendering and submitting to it before it even passed? And not only that but you are indeed seeking for a system of beliefs to twist into matching your own just so you can pretend to be something you aren't and you feel like that is a service to your community more than would be, say, contacting the FFRF that is dedicated specifically to push bills like these to the supreme court?

To answer your question, I suppose nobody here is going to dictate to you what Jediism is or isn't in any consistent fashion and even if they were, there is nothing preventing you from just taking the label and interpreting it on your own with or without the Temple's approval (TOTJO is neither the origin point of Jediism nor does it hold any unique rights to that label that it could or would take away from you). While it might take an effort and bring an advantage to become TOTJO clergy, you can define and start your own religion either way or you can declare yourself a Jedi Clergyman and nobody here could forbid you so as long as you don't tie TOTJO into something it has no part in. You are already submitting to the unpassed bill, you don't need instructions from a church to submit to also. Make your own choice.

If you're just looking for an ordination to perform marriages, this isn't the place for you. There are plenty of other places you can go and, for zero effort at all, get what you seek without actually joining a religion. There are pan-religious organizations and secular humanist organizations and Pastafarianism and Dudeism and all manner of "one-click ordination" sites that are legally upheld through both the First Amendment and Superme Court decisions. Jediism--TOTJO Jediism--is not where you'll find anything like this.

Secondly, the popular assumption that the "wall of separation between church and state" is to protect the state from the church is ignorant and ill-informed. The First Amendment exists to protect freedom of (or from) religion, not to gag churches and prevent them from exerting social influence via their congregations or voting habits. Indeed, it is only through the contractual agreement of 501c3 status that churches agree to prevent themselves from promoting individual candidates from the pulpit, not espousing voting for or against certain causes.

Thirdly, have you stopped to think that maybe this is exactly the kind of thing that needs to happen in your state? If the State removes itself from the marriage-solemnifying process, then laws no longer apply to who may and may not enter into that contract. This is the perfect opportunity for non-fundamentalist, progressive religious groups to step up and support this law--by marrying homosexual couples in public, in full view of the state and lawmakers.

As long as you seek what you stated, you won't find it here. You're welcome to stay and chat, and if you start seeking something different, we'll be here for you. But this isn't a ministerial diploma-mill, and as long as I'm loud and annoying, it never, ever will be.

in the U.S.
unitarian universalist church will ordain you today for submitting an application

it will give you (anyone) thelegal right to perform marriages

theres a certification document which they charge for but i remember it being pretty cheap

and i agree with the above post - this is exactly what the issue needed - same gender marriage doesnt need to be enforced - it just needs to be allowed

now, in your state, it is

your beliefs are fine insofar as compatability

generally, people here are here because we believe in the jedi ideal for its own sake

imo thats the correct way to approach any religion

Also:

Sipiri wrote: Lastly, I remember reading that my full legal name would be publicly published if I were to join the ToJO. I have maintained an almost invisible internet footprint over the years and I do not wish to compromise that. It is a tactic which has proven valuable in my career, as if I were more open about myself then the more prejudiced members of the school board might decide I ought not be a teacher in their district. My religious views, as well as other elements such as my identity within the LGBT spectrum, are divergent enough from the general population that it's prudent to keep quiet about myself. Is this public publishing something which could be waived?

No. Especially if you want to become clergy.

I mean, I'm not an authority figure in TOTJO by any means, but that rule exists for what I would consider to be many very good reasons, not least of which is the legal matter regarding ordination status should such a thing ever come up in court. While this is a worldwide group, it is incorporated in Texas, and must therefore adhere to the laws of the state in which it was incorporated. The way the bylaws are written up, many positions of authority in TOTJO are recorded either for current legal reasons (such as the corporation's board of directors), or for potential legal reasons in the future (ordained clergy legally may claim the seal of confession; licensed ministers have the legal right to perform marriages).

Furthermore, we like to know who we're dealing with. Makes everybody friendlier. And, do note that while it will be a matter of arguably public record, almost nobody actually looks at the thing unless it's necessary, and fewer people will call you by your legal name unless you tell them to. It's a formality, but a necessary one.

Someone more important than me should step in and correct me if I've misspoken.

Hmmm, if I didnt know you guys better, your posts seem rather, uh, 'grouchy', lol... :laugh:

To chime in for myself, I just logged out, and searched my name...

The only time it appeared, was when I have posted it, and my Bishop Ordination Ceremony...

The places where it it is posted for officialism, are only available for those logged in and with an account...

A public forum like this one, "James Foster", my legal name is searchable to non-members... The other occurances are not available without an account, and even some others are only available with higher access, such as my Knight Vow...

+++++++++++++++++++

Sipiri wrote: I would like everyone's thoughts on the compatibility with my 'belief' system and Jediism.

While we could offer our opinions, what is more important is if you can make them compatible...

Really, what we think isnt that important...

We wont say to you "thats not how you should do it", because we simply dont do that, lol...

Gisteron wrote: To answer your question, I suppose nobody here is going to dictate to you what Jediism is or isn't in any [strike]consistent[/strike] fashion and even if they were, there is nothing preventing you from just taking the label and interpreting it on your own with or without the Temple's approval (TOTJO is neither the origin point of Jediism nor does it hold any unique rights to that label that it could or would take away from you). While it might take an effort and bring an advantage to become TOTJO clergy, you can define and start your own religion either way or you can declare yourself a Jedi Clergyman and nobody here could forbid you so as long as you don't tie TOTJO into something it has no part in. You are already submitting to the unpassed bill, you don't need instructions from a church to submit to also. Make your own choice.

We will consistently say that... lol...

We just wont give a answer that could be seen as 'consistently' similar, a point which makes some folks a little irritated, lol...

Sipiri wrote: My objections to this bill are twofold: it was proposed in the spirit of discrimination

Why does it matter how it was proposed?

Yes, I understand that the bill wasnt trotted out in a positive light, but, the goal it acheives is the same... Sometimes, to move something along, we have to make it appealing to those who will enforce or deny it...

Rememeber, while 20% are for Gay Marriage, 80% are not... They are having to follow along grudginly...

Its not fair for Gay Marriage to be blocked, but if it is against a persons moral values, should they be forced to deal with it?

Granted, perhaps they are not best suited to be working there if it is such a burden, but the law changing does not mean their views change... Nor should they have to find new employment... It should be a 'requirement' for future generations that there could be differences of views, and could they continue to do their job it that happened...

Remove the attitude with which it was proposed, it doenst discriminate, so I dont see an issue...

Sipiri wrote: and it effectively breaks the separation of church and state.

Separation of Church and state already was broke when those clerks felt it violated their beliefs, their religion...

The job is to not pass judgement, but rather to perform a legal service...

Jestor wrote:
The places where it it is posted for officialism, are only available for those logged in and with an account...

And is that indexable through a search engine, do you reckon?

Jestor wrote: Why does it matter how it was proposed?

Because it's a clue as to how it will be implemented. Churches won't want to wed anyone they don't approve of, and since LGBT and atheists will have a hard time finding a minister in my part of the state, it would be a public service I'm willing to provide.

Gisteron wrote: So your way of opposing the bill is surrendering and submitting to it before it even passed? And not only that but you are indeed seeking for a system of beliefs to twist into matching your own

I'm not a legislator and I'm not going to tilt at windmills. I've learned what my skill set is, and lobbying is not one of them. If I'm going to join a religion, it will be one that I can believe in. I'm not considering pastafarianism or dudism because I cannot honestly subscribe to the tenants of either of those religions. If I were seeking to twist, why would I write a post asking about compatibility?

An undertone of your post is something I find troubling. Is it your opinion that, when joining a religion, one ought to change one's religious and moral convictions in order to gain membership? This seems intellectually dishonest- better to find a religion that fits you rather than change yourself to fit the religion. Be open to persuasion, sure, but don't compromise your own agency by letting others dictate what you believe.

Jestor wrote:
Rememeber, while 20% are for Gay Marriage, 80% are not... They are having to follow along grudginly...

Its not fair for Gay Marriage to be blocked, but if it is against a persons moral values, should they be forced to deal with it?

If they are a representative of the state, they ought to deal with it in the spirit of applying the law equally. As an employee of the state, I make sure that the 'moment of silence' is observed in my classroom, regardless on my (or their) opinions on its utility. If they are not an employee of the state, then they oughtn't have to 'deal with it'. The wrongful action is by the government in shoving a matter of state into the hands of its citizens and saying "you deal with this; I'm out". If the bill should pass, I'm willing to step up to bat.

Granted, perhaps they are not best suited to be working there if it is such a burden, but the law changing does not mean their views change... Nor should they have to find new employment... It should be a 'requirement' for future generations that there could be differences of views, and could they continue to do their job it that happened...

Jestor wrote:
Remove the attitude with which it was proposed, it doenst discriminate, so I dont see an issue...

Politics is who gets what when where and how. Clergy would get sole power to grant a legal status. LGBT and atheist individuals would get the ability for a non-religious marriage taken away. They would need to go through the process of finding someone who is willing to do it rather than just going to a courthouse. It's another roadblock to equality. Sure, it doesn't spell out discrimination in the wording of the law, but one ought to be able to see the effects of this legislation on religious, sexual, and gender minorities.

steamboat28 wrote: Secondly, the popular assumption that the "wall of separation between church and state" is to protect the state from the church is ignorant and ill-informed. The First Amendment exists to protect freedom of (or from) religion, not to gag churches and prevent them from exerting social influence via their congregations or voting habits.

I believe I know precisely what separation of church and state is. It is a theory of statecraft which asserts that the affairs of state and the affairs of religion ought to be kept separate for numerous reasons. It is to protect the religions from state influence AND to protect the state from theocratic influences.

The first amendment of the United States incorporates a notion of separation of church and state, and is left up to various entities to interpret what it says. It says that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion.

We could talk about constitutional interpretation, but unless there's a supreme court decision I'm unaware of, my state's government doesn't fall under the establishment clause. The supreme court has applied other sections of the first amendment to states, but not, so far as I'm aware, this specific clause.

steamboat28 wrote: (...
) laws no longer apply to who may and may not enter into that contract.

Incorrect. It merely removes the state's role in conferring the status.

steamboat28 wrote: (...) and secular humanist organizations

OB1Shinobi wrote: in the U.S.
unitarian universalist church will ordain you today for submitting an application

Thanks! I'll take a look at those. I didn't know secular organizations could preform marriages.


______________________________________________________

It seems like the primary objection I'm seeing isn't one of my beliefs, but rather, objection to my intent and the fear of appropriating your belief structure. This is fair to say?

I think the objection is using this religion to fulfil a political purpose rather than because you actually feel like you are a Jedi.

Edit: Something that I did think of... Do you realise how much work is involved in becoming clergy at TOTJO? It's not something you can do overnight.

The places where it it is posted for officialism, are only available for those logged in and with an account...

And is that indexable through a search engine, do you reckon?

Try searching for me... Use quotes, and try both logged in and out..

Because it's a clue as to how it will be implemented. Churches won't want to wed anyone they don't approve of, and since LGBT and atheists will have a hard time finding a minister in my part of the state, it would be a public service I'm willing to provide.

Eh, yea, kinda...

Except that there are sects of Christianity that dont give a hoot about that...

And, as was pointed out, online certifications can be bought, :sick: ...

:lol:...

Just not a fan of stuff like that, but, they can/do serve a purpose, lol... I thought about it before finding TOTJO...

If they are a representative of the state, they ought to deal with it in the spirit of applying the law equally. As an employee of the state

I agree...

but, they have never had to worry about it till recently...

NOW it is a concern....

When they discussed it with their friends, Im sure it went like, "I will never officiate THOSE people!" and then the others nodded in assertion...

LOL...

But, now it is something for them to worry about, so this is a compromising move...

I am in government too, both as a small time politician, and as an employee in the Public Works sector...

It seems like the primary objection I'm seeing isn't one of my beliefs, but rather, objection to my intent and the fear of appropriating your belief structure. This is fair to say?

Well, yes, kinda, lol.... :blush: :whistle: :laugh: :laugh:

We became Jedi to become Jedi... Not to circumvent a law...

It doenst make your motives improper, but most of us here take this as something of a calling, and not as something we take lightly... We already face ridicule for calling ourselves Jedi, and if we were to hand out ordinations, or certifications (something we accused of in the past, (anbd still occasionally) and have worked to rectify, :blush: )

And, in a certain light, your motive seems merely to satisfy legal issues...

There are many members here who are ordained through ULC... And are working on it here...

(Did I soft shoe that enough? :lol:...)

If it's just legal verification you're looking for, I suppose the quickest way I can think of is to go to Dudeism, get ordained in about 5 seconds, and pay for a certificate of ordination and a letter of good standing with the church of the dudely lama. I haven't done any clerical training here at TOTJO, but it seems like much more of a commitment than a form you fill out in under a minute. I don't mean to promote any other organizations or put down TOTJO; this merely seems like the most efficient means to your end.

Or you could try to get people to fight the legislation.

Good luck!