Regarding Current Events

Ros,

First, are you saying that the Temple is taking up an official stance, "as Jedi", on...something? If it's opinion, then fine - although you are a member of Council and everything you say carries weight AS Councilor. We could dismiss you as a Guest or Member if we disagreed with you...but a designated leader has a harder time breaking away from organizational representation. When a Councilor says, "As Jedi," you're a lot harder to ignore.

Second, We've made an assumption here that you're referencing US border policy enforcement - which you may not be, at least not in its entirety. But we don't know. If you're saying that the Temple is taking a stance on an event or events, please be clear about which and the nature of our position on them.

Third, *IF* we're taking a stance, we owe it to the Temple-goers and anyone reading to lay out a rational case for our position. Otherwise ambiguity allows for people to fill in the gaps, and people will feel things but not really have anything to think on or to guide them - whether agreeing or disagreeing. Your statement is pointed enough beyond, "We don't like bad stuff" to lead a reader to jump to a conclusion as to what you're talking about...and to consequently construct a version of events that may not reflect the complexity of reality. It's also vague enough to be irrefutable. There's nothing in your statement I disagree with...because I can't. That's a problem. It lives in that place where I don't know what you're referencing, what you want me to think about, what you want me to agree or disagree with, what you want me to believe, or what you're asking me to do.

I don't think you meant to, but you're asking me to feel a certain way based on a very agreeable, if general sentiment. Then you lead me down a path to make a mental leap to apply those feelings to a reality that may not exist. *I* have to make that leap, which clears you of any responsibility for it in the end.

Embracing complex reality is hard. When you act 'as a Jedi', be what the complex systems of the world NEED...not what you would like to see yourself as, or would like others to see you as. That is true selflessness.

I want to chime in with Reacher on this one.

It may not have been your intent, Rosalyn, to issue what appears to be a Temple stance on the matter. This is made a perception based on the title and the location of the post (announcements). But the verbiage used in the title is what puts this completely into controversy. Had the title read "Regarding Jedi and Legal Policy", or something to that effect, then the discussion would sound more like a discussion- and less like it was ToTJO taking a stance on something.

The major problem with the appearance of the title and what was written within, is that none of your council members have jumped in to support you. Senior Knight Dude and Knight Adder both came in to discuss a topic brought up (Child Segregation from their Parents at the Border), neither seem to have moved to confirm or deny that this was the topic you addressed. Knight Reacher is also demonstrating a lack of understanding of where you are coming from- which brings up a serious problem: You have presented a fracture in the leadership.

Purely from an outsider's prospective- Two things could have happened here:
1) The council agreed with you to post this, but now they aren't publicly coming to your aide to help assist in your message.
2) You took it upon yourself to address a topic without the approval of the council, and as a result it shows that you have no confidence in the council. But even more alarming is that you are still standing alone in what you're saying- the council hasn't come in to speak beside you.

Neither of these are good positions to be in. In the first, it's just wrong for the council to not support your message. In the second, it deteriorates moral and undermines the council as a whole.

It is always good to demonstrate that you stand in one accord.

If you took this to the council, then it should be stated "In talking with the council about recent events pertaining to (X) we believe it should be expressed that as Jedi...." This way, if no one steps up to the plate to chime in with you, it at least stands that you have expressed the group as a whole stood beside you at one point. Thus, no one is needed to chime in.

If, however, you took it upon yourself to post this, then it should be placed in another discussion area of the forum, and presented as your own understanding of the matter in accordance with the Jedi Path and by proxy ToTJO's doctrine.

Ok look this whole thing stemmed from a request by a member for Temple comment on the current ICE issues the country is facing. I wrote the wording of the exact stance and the council agreed with it. Why have we not stepped in to respond? All of us have very very busy lives at the moment so we have had little time to put ourselves personally into an issue that we all more or less consented to earlier. I myself am facing the fact that a family member is terminally ill and won't be seeking treatment due to age. So to sit here and see people bash Ros for a stance simply because it's not worded the way you want it is more than a little annoying. Many implications are being taken rather than asking for clarification simply because some of us have had a lot going on in a day and a half since this was posted and one of those days was a holiday

I wrote the stance in light of the fact that we have to be very careful as a church how we voice our political views on anything. So the wording is constructed so as to be able to apply to ANY law that can catch up the innocent via age etc. It is also written so as to be able to apply to any law where harm can be perceived to outweigh the good it does or at least in the laws current enforcement methods.

Why so vague? Because it avoids us having to write a stance on any other controversial laws in the future. We can point to this stance on any potential harmful law and say yes we get we might need the law for X but it does Y and Y is doing more harm than good. The whole point of the stance it to be able to apply to any law or situation without breaking political rules for 501c churches and to be one that most Jedi can agree with. That our goal should be to support the law where appropriate and minimize suffering when and where possible. Its wording is deliberate

If anyone thinks I'm overly harsh or has any other issues my inbox is open take it there and say what you want. I'll get to it once I process the family situation

Sorry to hear about your familly issues Hatter. I know its not much but, my thought are with you at this difficult time.

**Disclaimer** This isn't a direct response to anyone's comments, just my thoughts on this whole thing. I don't require a response from anyone, unless they wish to give one.

I think I'm with Reacher and Alethea on this one. Again, its the same old issue of clarity and consistency...

People appear to be 'bashing Ros', but infact they are simply asking for clarity. If this was an official notice from the council, as it now appears to be (based off of Hatter's comments), then that should have been made clear. That's not a criticism of Ros, but of council/temple procedure.

Whilst I understand the purpose of keeping things vague, so as to avoid 'having to write a stance on any other controversial laws in the future', that makes for a consistency problem. If your making a stance on one controversial law then you are in danger of setting a precedence by which people look to you to take a stance on other controversial laws. So it really should have been made clear that this is a 'one off' thing which can also serve as a general guidance for future controversies too.

Also, since when did TotJO start taking a stance on these sorts of issues anyway? Turning to our doctrine, I appreciate that we, as Jedi believe:

'In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice' and 'In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin'

but we, as Jedi, also believe:

'...moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time', 'In the importance of freedom of conscience and self-determination within religious, political and other structures.' and 'In the separation of religion and government and the freedoms of speech, association and expression.'

Irrespective of our personal thoughts on the current laws and policies in the States, we, as a Temple, seem to be spending way too much time focusing on the first sections I quoted, and forgetting about the second sections.

P.S. If we're talking about something that is USA specific, can we make that clear too :laugh:. As a member from the UK reading the OP, American immigration policy didn't even enter my mind lol

Enough with the nitpicking and criticizing. Roslyn is a Councillor and our Pastor. MadHatter is also a Councillor and is experienced in legal matters regarding our 501c3 status and the ramifications of making this type of statement.

We discussed it as a Council and agreed that the statement was appropriate for this situation. If you disagree, you are welcome to share your thoughts, but we are not going to open every statement made by this Council to debate among people who won't ultimately bare any of the responsibility for making them.

Our Doctrine has some strong statements as well, and not everyone agrees with all of them, but if you are going to call yourself a TOTJO Jedi, you will either have to reconcile yourself with these statements or accept that this place does not represent your views well enough to warrant your support.

We strongly support individual freedom to make moral and ethical determinations as Jedi, but this church is not an individual and the official statements made by Council will not represent the views of everyone here.

Disclaimer : this is my own opinion and it is more than ok to disagree with
Ima put this out there - take it as you can. It’s not the intention - ever - to tell some one or any part of the “body” any direction to take- we don’t tell you what to do.(I don’t and try not to) We as a whole understand that it’s the joy and the right as an individual to have your free will to make your own choices on matters. We come here to share our Jedi ism with one another and of possible learn from one another —-https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/
It Says it here

How - you - the individual - does , is , how a Person applys their Jedi ism - is to them - the individual. We hold similar doctor one and codes n such but how you display it is all you . And that’s a good thing.
We won’t go saying - this is wrong or this is right because that’s not what we are generally about and that type idea of - pointing out who’s right who’s wrong - can keep an individual from the idea of learning from one another rather than the blame or subject of right n wrong. When the focus is the item of eighth and wrong it’s easy - way easy to start griping about that and not... act. Did you read that right ? The object can be a focus of action and often times the place of blame keeps one from acting.
We want people to act. We encourage that. We have outreach forms ready and willing for any members of the temple to chime in their acts of kindness and giving aether money time or just a war. No one here ever should tell some one
“What they need to do” - be carful and wise of that. Take some time to think on your own and make your own decisions on things and be glad ... no none here can ever tell you - “do this!!!” That’s to you , yourself , part of being human and all! Use your ability’s and your joys.

Senan wrote: Enough with the nitpicking and criticizing.

Of the now 13 posts in this thread, only 3 could be considered criticisms. But I don't actually believe that anyone intended to criticise anything. People were just confused by what the OP was, who it was coming from, and what it was about.

My first comment was to ask what the heck the OP was on about, because it wasn't clear.

Reacher's comment was asking whether it was an official council announcement or Rosa's opinion, because it wasn't clear.

Alethea's comment was an assumption, off the back of Reacher's query, that this probably wasn't an official announcement because the Temple doesn't usually make any kind of official stance on anything. An assumption she only made, because it wasn't clear.

As I said in an off-site discussion with one of your fellow councillors, I appreciate that it's very easy for me to sit here and point all this out with the benefit of hindsight, and also as a person 'who won't ultimately bare any of the responsibility'. I also appreciate that you are all EXTREMELY busy individuals and, frankly, I have to say that I greatly admire you all and am forever thankful to you all for the amount of work and effort you guys put into keeping this place going. Its a never ending and often thankless task.

It's unfortunate that we've ended up in a situation where you guys feel under constant attack, but I want you know that in my case (and I'm pretty sure in the other case's too) these comments were not born out of a desire to nitpick or criticise, they were born out of confusion as to what this thread was about.

Thank you, Brick. I often forget that as someone in these conversations daily I know a lot more than most people here about intentions. I take for granted that I have access to information others don't and I forget that people might need more details in order to put my words in the proper context.

In reference to this specific situation, it should be said that we as Council are trying to be more assertive and take a stronger role in guiding the direction of the Temple. I know this was part of Rosalyn's motivation to take a stand as our Pastor about an issue that is important to many of our members. That said, we will need practice as we learn to represent an international community with diverse views about such topics.

I apologize for seeming to be combative, but I will stand by my support of Rosalyn in her efforts to take a stand in the name of the church she leads. We will get better at being more clear about official communication from Council and the help of members like you, Brick, is greatly appreciated. Personally, I am thankful for your patience with me.

The facts of the issue are clear. It takes a little reading to know the full story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/

The president and top administration officials say U.S. laws or court rulings are forcing them to separate families that are caught trying to cross the southern border.

These claims are false. Immigrant families are being separated primarily because the Trump administration in April began to prosecute as many border-crossing offenses as possible. This “ zero-tolerance policy ” applies to all adults, regardless of whether they cross alone or with their children.

The Justice Department can’t prosecute children along with their parents, so the natural result of the zero-tolerance policy has been a sharp rise in family separations. Nearly 2,000 immigrant children were separated from parents during six weeks in April and May, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

The Trump administration implemented this policy by choice and could end it by choice. No law or court ruling mandates family separations. In fact, during its first 15 months, the Trump administration released nearly 100,000 immigrants who were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border, a total that includes more than 37,500 unaccompanied minors and more than 61,000 family members.

Continue reading at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/

Does anyone actually disagree with the statement though? LOL, I mean.... it was made in a climate but not made in a context. By asserting a context and then adding politics is taking one leap too far removed from the statement IMO. I do know its natural for peoples own politics to creep in on how things are seen because we all tend to get a bit protective about those sided political positions on issues and with politics we tend to sometimes define ourselves by association with the party and therefore defend those positions as if its personal..... but I thought the statement seemed to avoid the politics. And we cannot be afraid to say something knowing that fact, which is why it was non-specific I assume.
I only knew the statement was in response to the US situation because I'd seen the member request on the public Wall asking for it, but my post was not intended to be a criticism of the Council statement, rather an application of it to the current climate from my own local context (experiences and opinions) - how that relates to the politics is in details beyond me.