Is Trumps Boarder Wall Antithetical To Jedi Doctrine?

After reading a related post but having my questions sidelined by senior temple members on the grounds of being off topic, i thought I'd ask the question here.

Is Trumps boarder wall, which is a continuation of a project ongoing for decades responsible for countless deaths and discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and national origin, the antithesis of what the Jedi believe?


Jedi Believe
In the Force, and in the inherent worth of ALL LIFE within it.
In the SANCTITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON. WE OPPOSE the use of torture and CRUEL or UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, INCLUDING the DEATH penalty.
In a society governed by laws GROUNDED IN REASON and COMPASSION, NOT in FEAR or PREJUDICE
In a society that DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and NATIONAL ORIGIN.
In the ETHIC OF RECIPROCITY , and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.
In the positive influence of spiritual growth and awareness on society.
In the importance of freedom of conscience and SELF-DETERMINATION within religious,POLITICAL AND OTHER STRUCTURES.
In the separation of religion and government and the FREEDOMs OF speech, ASSOCIATION and expression.

www.templeofthejediorder.org/doctrine-of-the-order#JediBelieve

When did it become cool to address threads on a public forum, accessible to the entire damn internet, to single individuals?

I'm not sure what you mean. That was how the other one was worded.

see below
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/123483-critiquing-the-boarder-wall-for-br-john?start=0

I'm not sure what you mean. That was how the other one was worded.

Well, that's one way to do things I suppose.

Addressing a thread to a member (which is weird, but okay) that starts with a complaint about that member is...more weird?


Anyway, lets see where this goes -

No, a wall, is not anti..tht...etic...cal...I can't pronounce that, to Jediism - it ensures that both the USA and UMS governments are able to maintain effective control over their respective areas of responsibility, offering safety, security, education, healthcare, etc etc as they see fit and as supported by their populations according to their earnings, taxes, and so on.


The only thing better than a wall would be one country annexing the other to have consistent management across the entire region (lets say Canada annexes USA and Mexico, because everyone agrees that Monarchies are better than Republics)

JamesSand wrote: When did it become cool to address threads on a public forum, accessible to the entire damn internet, to single individuals?

Warning: Spoiler!

There's a real specific answer I want you to give, there really is.

It's not. I corrected that before it got out of hand and should have on the other thread.

I'm specifically talking about the doctrine of this organization not "Jediism" in general as there are many Jedi communities. In case you havent read it before:

Jedi Believe

In the Force, and in the inherent worth of ALL LIFE within it.
In the SANCTITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON. WE OPPOSE the use of torture and CRUEL or UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, INCLUDING the DEATH penalty.
In a society governed by laws GROUNDED IN REASON and COMPASSION, NOT in FEAR or PREJUDICE
In a society that DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and NATIONAL ORIGIN.
In the ETHIC OF RECIPROCITY , and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.
In the positive influence of spiritual growth and awareness on society.
In the importance of freedom of conscience and SELF-DETERMINATION within religious,POLITICAL AND OTHER STRUCTURES.
In the separation of religion and government and the FREEDOMs OF speech, ASSOCIATION and expression.

JamesSand wrote: When did it become cool to address threads on a public forum, accessible to the entire damn internet, to single individuals?

The better question would be, when did it become cool to angrily argue and debate over topics superfluous to the Jedi religion on a site promoting a doctrine of peace, compassion, knowledge, and understanding?
Personally, that has been annoying me a lot lately.
Every time I get onto this site, it seems like every other conversation in the forums turns into a pissing match, usually about subjects that have NOTHING to do with this community's focus.
Not very Jedi-like of us.

My (more? Less?) jerky response is - Many members here are from the USA (or the UMS?) are might be trying to find a way to make Jediism (an important part of their identity) work with their politics (or find a way to use it to overcome their political opponents, either way)

I'd rather y'all spent your time wondering how to save the Great Barrier Reef, but if this is what y'all want to discuss, I'm here for you.

CaesarEJW wrote:

JamesSand wrote: When did it become cool to address threads on a public forum, accessible to the entire damn internet, to single individuals?

The better question would be, when did it become cool to angrily argue and debate over topics superfluous to the Jedi religion on a site promoting a doctrine of peace, compassion, knowledge, and understanding?
Personally, that has been annoying me a lot lately.
Every time I get onto this site, it seems like every other conversation in the forums turns into a pissing match, usually about subjects that have NOTHING to do with this community's focus.
Not very Jedi-like of us.

It's also SPAM. This going on and on pretending to not understand hypotheticals and posting what's on our front page over and over, stops now

KerouacsGhost wrote: I'm specifically talking about the doctrine of this organization not "Jediism" in general as there are many Jedi communities. In case you havent read it before:

Jedi Believe

In the Force, and in the inherent worth of ALL LIFE within it.
In the SANCTITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON. WE OPPOSE the use of torture and CRUEL or UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, INCLUDING the DEATH penalty.
In a society governed by laws GROUNDED IN REASON and COMPASSION, NOT in FEAR or PREJUDICE
In a society that DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and NATIONAL ORIGIN.
In the ETHIC OF RECIPROCITY , and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.
In the positive influence of spiritual growth and awareness on society.
In the importance of freedom of conscience and SELF-DETERMINATION within religious,POLITICAL AND OTHER STRUCTURES.
In the separation of religion and government and the FREEDOMs OF speech, ASSOCIATION and expression.

The answer to your question would be a resounding YES.
This is clear.
Any answer otherwise would be contradictory to our doctrine.

The answer to your question would be a resounding YES.
This is clear.
Any answer otherwise would be contradictory to our doctrine.

I always find obvious answers are the hardest to explain.

Why is a border wall, by it's very nature, in opposition to TotJO doctrine? (no fear of offending me, I don't vote in either of the countries involved, but you might want to temper any response knowing that it will be read by Jedi of a variety of walks of life)

(I have, with an intent to see your side - looked through the doctrine. I can not see that a wall between two lawfully governed nations is any more against our doctrine than the colorbond fence that keeps my dogs in the yard....)

JamesSand wrote:

The answer to your question would be a resounding YES.
This is clear.
Any answer otherwise would be contradictory to our doctrine.

I always find obvious answers are the hardest to explain.

Why is a border wall, by it's very nature, in opposition to TotJO doctrine? (no fear of offending me, I don't vote in either of the countries involved, but you might want to temper any response knowing that it will be read by Jedi of a variety of walks of life)

(I have, with an intent to see your side - looked through the doctrine. I can not see that a wall between two lawfully governed nations is any more against our doctrine than the colorbond fence that keeps my dogs in the yard....)

Well, obviously a WALL isn't against the doctrine.
If you don't live in the US, there are a lot of underlying elements that you probably aren't aware of.

It isn't JUST the wall, there is a lot of bigotry and racial tension behind the whole idea.
That's what it is about more than anything.
Not to mention our current Administration's habit of forcibly separating children from their parents and putting these kids in internment camps with inhumane living conditions.
Seriously.
This whole wall thing is an expression of power and bigotry, it has no real practical purpose.

That's why it is contradictory to our doctrine because it is literally all about discrimination, fear, prejudice, and it all stems from ignorance and a lack of compassion.

(and "lawfully governed" is a bit of a stretch, both nations have corrupt governments)

Well, obviously a WALL isn't against the doctrine.
If you don't live in the US, there are a lot of underlying elements that you probably aren't aware of.

It isn't JUST the wall, there is a lot of bigotry and racial tension behind the whole idea.
That's what it is about more than anything.
Not to mention our current Administration's habit of forcibly separating children from their parents and putting these kids in internment camps with inhumane living conditions.
Seriously.
This whole wall thing is an expression of power and bigotry, it has no real practical purpose.

That's why it is contradictory to our doctrine because it is literally all about discrimination, fear, prejudice, and it all stems from ignorance and a lack of compassion.

So if the answer is "Yes"
is the question "is USA's immigration policy antithetical to Jedi doctrine?"

Yes, the "wall" is a part of our immigration policy.

Yes, the "wall" is a part of our immigration policy.

I may just be getting lost in the semantics (it's another 30 minutes until my banana bread is ready, and you have not replied to my non-debate resurrection of practical leadership thread ) - but is it possible that a physical wall could work as part of more generous overall policy?

Even if the USA has the friendliest, most generous immigration and refugee support programme in the history of mankind, there could still be an argument for strict control and management of ingress and egress from the region in which that programme applies, and therefore, argument for a wall.

JamesSand wrote:

Yes, the "wall" is a part of our immigration policy.

I may just be getting lost in the semantics (it's another 30 minutes until my banana bread is ready, and you have not replied to my non-debate resurrection of practical leadership thread ) - but is it possible that a physical wall could work as part of more generous overall policy?

Even if the USA has the friendliest, most generous immigration and refugee support programme in the history of mankind, there could still be an argument for strict control and management of ingress and egress from the region in which that programme applies, and therefore, argument for a wall.

I fricking love banana bread.

I don't disagree with the wall, I disagree with the intentions behind it.
Supporters of the idea act like it's going to fix everything, but it is our immigration policies and systems themselves that need to be heavily reformed.
The wall isn't going to do anything about the over-lying issues, it is just a political move by our Prez.
Once we get our shit together, then yeah, let's build that damn wall!

The wall isn't going to do anything about the over-lying issues, it is just a political move by our Prez.

I'm sure there's more than one political commentator out there who might suggest that many of the actions taken by a government are done simply to distract the population (supporters or opponents) from other, related or unrelated matters.

of course, that would be off topic from the question, which is a border wall in contradiction to TotJO Doctrine.

I suppose without clarification if the question is assumed to include a certain amount of rhetoric about what the wall represents, or is supposed to achieve, we have gone as far as we can go.

JamesSand wrote:

The wall isn't going to do anything about the over-lying issues, it is just a political move by our Prez.

I'm sure there's more than one political commentator out there who might suggest that many of the actions taken by a government are done simply to distract the population (supporters or opponents) from other, related or unrelated matters.

of course, that would be off topic from the question, which is a border wall in contradiction to TotJO Doctrine.

I suppose without clarification if the question is assumed to include a certain amount of rhetoric about what the wall represents, or is supposed to achieve, we have gone as far as we can go.

That is the thing though, if we were just talking about a border wall in general, that'd be completely different because we would be discussing the practicality of the thing in of itself.

But this is about "Trump's Border Wall", which isn't just a thing, but an idea that intrinsically has a lot of ideological baggage, mainly of a politically motivated and racial/bigoted nature.

A "border wall" wouldn't be contradictory.
But "Trump's Wall", is a whole different beast.

But this is about "Trump's Border Wall", which isn't just a thing, but an idea that intrinsically has a lot of ideological baggage, mainly of a politically motivated and racial/bigoted nature.

Apparently (I don't have data to back this up) a lot more people search the internet for "how do I stop mexicans stealing my job, wife, and freedom" (I'm paraphrasing, I'm sure) than report as racist in surveys.

Which is weird, why be ashamed of being racist?

Any opinion I have on Mr Trump's presidency would be unfairly and poorly informed by what I can readily access on the "popular" internet. I acknowledge that, and refrain from offering too much wisdom on the subject - I can really only offer generalities and concepts on the management of a nation without any specific reference to how the USA has, does, and should undertake such a thing.

Americans who are racist almost always try to disguise their bigotry as practicality, because it is something to be ashamed of.
Racism has a clear negative connotation, most people will not admit to being racist, even if they really are (unless they are some kind of edgelord).

I'm from the Midwest, and I live in the Midwest (from Kansas, currently reside in Missouri), so I have seen this all firsthand.
The Midwest in America is one of the most conservative parts of the country.
(for some reason, racial prejudice seems to coincide with political conservatism).

And yes, while your perspective on this subject may be limited, this subject can still be broken down to its base principles.

Which would be that of an action motivated by bigotry, disguised as practicality, and used purely to gain political momentum.
At the core of this whole issue is the simple fact that Trump's supporters like the Wall idea, so he will use that to get more votes.
That is all this comes down to really.