"Jedi Believe" was Tied....

During the recent questionnaire, two positions were taken in equal parts. Nearly 40% of those that polled wanted to keep the Jedi Believe section as it is, and nearly another 40% stated they wanted to rewrite the Jedi Believe section.

It wasn't long that we actually saw a discussion about whether or not someone can be a Jedi of ToTJO if they didn't agree with something written into the "Jedi Believe" section. As a result the place it has in ToTJO has been fairly well established in the minds of participants. So let's open up the floor-

What do you think needs to be changed/added/reworded in this section of the Doctrine?

For simplicity's sake, I'll repost it below so we don't have to run back and forth between tabs (not intended to be spam )

Doctrine wrote: 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.

I've looked this over, and personally I think it covers all the bases. Though, with the addition of specific political problems listed (death penalty) I've wondered if perhaps we should start taking more specific political stances. Though it might be covered completely if we took that out completely and changed the third point to:

"In a society governed by laws grounded in reason, compassion, and equality, not in fear or prejudice."

(in case anyone was wondering, I voted to leave this one as is , this just has been a question I've had several times over the years ^^)

I'd almost think we need another survey for each item, because I doubt I could find anyone who disagrees with items 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, or 9 (in no way does that mean I'm against those items not listed)
Even between items 3, 5, and 6, I wouldn't be surprised if the temple was in favor of them as currently formulated (and definitely with a caveat)
I'm interested in hearing from people with stronger opinions

I agree with Rex. Another survey should be made for each item. A comments box for each item would be nice too, and would make organizing information a lot easier imo, if possible.

My concerns are mainly with items 2 and 5.

Item 2 identifies the death penalty as something Jedi are against. However, some do support the death penalty. While we should not look to the fiction for everything, it is noteworthy that the Jedi of the fiction were not above delivering the death penalty. Vader only stopped Windu in episode 3 because he was going to kill Palpatine without a fair trial, and because Palpatine was unarmed. When he kills Dooku, his only reason for it being against the "Jedi way" is because Dooku was unarmed.
Likewise, many Jedi are soldiers, veterans, or law enforcement. They may have unfortunately had to take a person's life at some point, either in self-defense or on orders they could not refuse, and that is ostensibly an application of a kind of death penalty. Does this item make these Jedi appear less legitimate as Jedi? If so, is that justified?
I am a pacifist, and I oppose the death penalty. But I would not say someone else is not a Jedi because they support the death penalty.

Item 5 implies moral relativism. But if moral relativism is accepted, how are we to take the value-statements in the other items? Words like "positive influence" in the item immediately following item 5, for example, is clearly a value-statement of something I would consider moral or ethical.

Doctrine wrote: [Jedi believe] In the Force, ...

Well, I have seen plenty Jedi say that they believe in that, but what this "that" is appears to be rather inconsistent between them at best. What exactly is this "the Force", other than a vague label that can mean anything and therefore means nothing? What does it mean to say that Jedi, or even a noteworthy portion of them "believe in" it?

... and in the inherent worth of all life within it.

This also I don't understand. "Inherent worth" always sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. Again, I'll hear people pay lip service to believing in it, but I have yet to meet one who can, when pressed, coherently articulate what on earth they mean by it.

For me, no need to change this.

For me a tie between "keep the same" and "change" is easy, as the inherent impact of the two are not the same. Changing risks alienating those already here, retaining doesn't, as it was like that when they signed up and it didn't stop them.

For me, on balance, those who are already a constituent of this place deserve priority in what it is defined as, vs trying to make it somehow more appealing or different to those who are not yet invested.

Given the drama inherent in any change to it, the split vote and the fact to be here you had to be OK enough with that section to not be put off joining... it seems logical and fairer to those who are already invested in this place to keep it as it is.

I can make a survey later today for this

Below is a form you can use.
https://forms.gle/tmdbR5nwNZhht2rg9

All of them have a place for a paragraph answer (I'm not sure what the character limit for that is, but it was the biggest box I could give you).

Please take the time to comment on each one. If you think something should be taken out completely write "Delete" if you believe something should remain unchanged write "Retain", and if you believe it can be reworded write "Reword". Please make sure these are at the beginning of any explanations you post. If you want something rewritten, we request a viable option be given in its place.

Thanks Ally, added my input.

I've added my input as well.
Manu, I'm surprised by how closely we answered. :lol: :woohoo:

Right? There's a very similar pattern to responses so far
Where's the contrarians when you need them haha

I've added my input as well.

Regarding to this I think that political area shouldn't be included in Jedi beliefs.
One could argue that political stuff are related to it also and that's right, however I think that doctrine has enough informations which are related to it already.

It took me all week to sort my thoughts out on this. I objected to the political bit that i dont really agree with on the grounds that it was too political, but then i realized i was willing to accept the political bits that i did agree with and the incongruity of that kind of stumped me for a time. What ive decided is that I personally believe that our Doctrine ought to be built on principles and ideas that guide and empower us to make our own decisions about life, including politics. I dislike and distrust the idea of instantiating specific political positions into the Doctrine, even the positions with which I agree.

Although imo morality ought to influence politics (as opposed to the other way around), I think we really need to figure out where we ought to take a stand. Freedom of expression especially in the context of religion might seem obvious, but the odd smattering of references to American constitutional amendments seems haphazard.

Should we include that we're for trials by a jury of one's peers? What's our stand on quartering soldiers, term limits, or the rule against perpetuities?

*Bump* This is still running. I'll give it until the end if the first week of March. ^^. And after that I'll post what people said.

https://forms.gle/tmdbR5nwNZhht2rg9

1. In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.

Retain - 3
2 Rewrite Proposals:
A ) In the Force, and the inherent interconnectedness of all life within it (explanation: the point of this sentence is to emphasize the Force at least as the interconnectedness of all things - since the Force can mean so much more, but its definition is beyond the scope of the Jedi Believe section)

B ) In the Force, a type of energy field that is connected with all living beings. The force binds the universe together and is connected with everything. The Force acts in mysterious ways . Some people call it Karma, others say it's the will of the universe . But we believe in the Force. We real life Jedi may not have the ability to " use the force " like the fictional Jedi. We do use their teachings in many ways. And incorporating it into our daily lives.

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

Retain - 2
Rewrite Proposals
A ) In the sanctity of the human individual. (Explanation: the second sentence is already covered by "society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion". I feel the necessary emphasis here is to ensure the human individual is respected ABOVE the community. Not that community is not essential for individuals to thrive, but there should never be repression against the individual based on collectivism - the greater good. Sacrifice for the greater good is one thing, it is WILLING. Imposed collectivism, is tyranny.)

B ) "...including the death penalty when an adequate substitute exists.”

C ) In the worth of all humanity , and the value of every human life . We do not condone the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment .

D ) We believe in the sanctity of the human person. The rest is one persons political belief being woven into our shared Doctrine.

Delete Explanation:
A ) I do not believe that the death penalty should be included here. There are enough Jedi who support it (or have engaged in other form of authorized execution, as in military strikes) that I do not think supporting the death penalty should prevent someone from being a Jedi. It is also my view that negative statements (e.g. "oppose") should be avoided. This is about what we do believe in, not what we don't believe in. Saying that we believe in the sanctity of the human person is enough.

In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.

Retain - 3
Delete (no explanation) - 1
Rewrite Proposals:
A ) I approve, but I would prefer for negative statements (e.g. "not") to be avoided. Saying that we support a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion is enough, the "not in fear or prejudice" is implicit in it already.

B ) I agree with the basic principle but the way it is worded shifts the responsibility of living up to it onto society and the government rather than placing it where it belongs, which is squarely upon the shoulders of the individual Jedi. This theme I am speaking of will recur throughout this survey.

In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.
Retain - 5
Rewrite Proposal
A ) The entire “in a society” line makes this whole section into a political position. Jesus said something about taking the beam out of our own eye before we go trying to take the mote out of our neighbor’s eye, and I agree. If we build a doctrine that encourages good, critical thinking as well as compassion and empathy within each individual Jedi, it stands to reason that we will end up with a group of people who are cumulatively pushing their respective societies in positive directions. We dont need to churn out political activists, we need to help people understand who they are, who they want to be, and how to bridge the gap between the two.

In the ethic of reciprocity, and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.

Retain - 2

Rewrite Proposals
A ) This needs to be rewritten or scrapped. If we support subjective morality, it lessens the value of what we say about any moral, ethical, or political subject -- including the entirety of the doctrine which is filled with ethical stances.

B ) "...reciprocity, and how societal norms are not absolute, and inform morality"

C ) We have two different ideas being lumped together here. One is reciprocity and the other is a sort of moral relativism. We need to separate these and deal with them each independently. On reciprocity: I’d like to submit “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” as a starting point for our discussion on reciprocity. On moral relativism: its a very specific box on the ideological spectrum and one of the very few things that virtually all of us agree on is that we don’t belong in that box. Morality is nuanced and highly contextual but recognizing this complexity is not the same thing as being a moral relativist. Lets hammer out what the difference is and put the results into the Doctrine.

Delete Explanation
A ) ”Society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion" already imply ethic of reciprocity. The second part sets a slippery slope for moral relativism.

In the positive influence of spiritual growth and awareness on society.

Retain - 4
Rewrite Proposal
A ) Make this more specific to us as individuals. We cant push “spiritual growth” on society. We can only attempt to produce growth in ourselves, as individuals. We believe that if we can drive ourselves towards nobility and goodness that some of those around us will see this and realize that they can do it, too. We believe that if we bring the best out of ourselves that we will help others to see that they can also bring out the best of themselves.

In the importance of freedom of conscience and self-determination within religious, political and other structures.

Retain - 3
Delete (no explanation) - 1
Re-write Proposal:
A ) Again, I completely agree with premise but I’d much prefer the emphasis were on encouraging the individual Jedi’s willingness to become self-determinate and to courageously exercise their own conscience, regardless of what “society” has to say about it.

In the separation of religion and government and the freedoms of speech, association and expression.

Retain - 3
Delete (no explanation) - 1
Rewrite Proposal
A ) Its like someone took the bits of the American Constitution that they liked but then threw out all the rest. If you believed in the separation of religion and government then you wouldn't be using the Doctrine of your religion as a tool to recruit people into your political agenda.

We're all in Quarantine, seems like a good chance to ponder the input by our fellow Templemates (yes, I made that word up ). What's the insight from others?

I'll toss in rationale for my change suggestions:
"In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty."

My suggestion was to append "...when an adequate substitute exists."
A lot of the principles are redundant, so while paring them back would be a bit nice, I think the bigger issue here is the never death penalty stance. I believe that as stands in the US, it is cheaper and more ethical to have inmates serve a life w/o parole sentence. However, I recognize that not everyone will have the means to make that happen, and that there certainly are crimes which could justify the death penalty (war crimes, aggravated sexual crimes, several crimes against children, etc.). I added in the last bit to recognize that while we strive for an ideal, we're unfortunately far from that place, and don't want to be snobby.

"In the ethic of reciprocity, and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time."
For this one I really saw a quibble between two views that aren't mutually exclusive, but still competitive: that moral views aren't this monolith innate to all humanity and that morality is arbitrary. My suggestion was to change the last half of it to:
"...and how societal norms are not absolute, and inform morality."
Because while I believe that our morality is based on our experiences (and thus passed down to us by our culture), the idea that it can't be anything more than relative screams laziness. I think we can all agree that norms inform how we perceive morality and that norms aren't universal, so I suggest narrowing that position.

And although I didn't add it in back then, I'd suggest clarifying the last one to say "In the removal of government from religion and the freedoms of speech, press, association and expression."
And just to clarify, those last freedoms are not a blank check to communicate whatever content wherever you are. There are obvious areas where those freedoms are curtailed or non-existent such as: fraud, credible threats or incitement to imminent and serious violence/illegal actions, child pornography, and speech which violates intellectual property.

I think the overall ethos here is to gather principles upon which we can (almost) all agree or suggest that it needs go further. I think the doctrine has the most power when it really is shared by all who are here

It doesn't feel as though surveys and discussions are going to clear this up. Indeed, what do Jedi "believe" beyond having a faith in the Force ?

Lists of noble sounding words do not necessarily give a very good indication of what people actually believe. Beliefs are a little more elusive than it may appear on the surface of things.

I'm afraid that the posting of what Jedi "believe" is just another form of advertising. There are generic enough statements that people may find in them ideals they would like to hold, but, once tried, find them to be quite slippery. Besides, I don't feel as though believing or disbelieving in any of these ideals would impede one from a belief and a faith in the Force.

This is exactly why we cannot define the Force too. The faith of a Jedi comes from deep within the subconscious (or unconscious) that defies its expression in words. There is evidence of this in neuropsychology, but evidence requires exploration. Much exploration. We have been cautioned time and time again to not just parrot what someone else has said as though it were one's own faith. And we have seen that sort of "faith", that sort of "belief", fall apart just as soon as the ego is threatened.

That isn't to say that there are not some general notions that we can all pretty much agree on, but they aren't really a question of belief or faith. They are the same notions about compassion, simplicity and patience that are the foundations of many religions. They have their place in moral philosophy (if one prefers to remain safely secular) and can even be found here and there in analytic philosophy. And they form the fulcrum of any meeting of two or more "Selves" in existential and transcendental phenomenology.

So, what I'm trying to get at here is that belief is not democratic. Indeed, as the Solomon Asch experiment has shown us, people tend to (say that they) "believe" what others say they believe. That's all any poll or think-tank style discussion will yield.

We do need to discuss these matters though. But not by using debate tactics. They ought to be descussed using genuine dialogue. We ought to be just understanding enough to accept that most of us have not had to face the extraordinary ordeals that puts our belief, our faith, to the test - thus transforming it. Most of us have had gruelling, yet very ordinary trials. Losing loved ones, being in combat situations, overcoming illnesses (or not) ... these are all very heroic trials, but they are not particularly transcendent in most cases. Indeed, they are part of the human condition and have been as ordinary as grass over the course of recorded history. We can't even count on science to let us know what we actually "believe". As it were, Scientism is a pretty flimsy belief system, even for scientists.

Thus, after all that, the question still remains : What do we "believe" ? Let's not take a bloody vote on it. Let's take a good long time to discuss sincerely with one another what we feel. What we "think" is of very little importance...