Regarding Current Events

As Jedi we abide by the law. However when that law catches innocent people unable to understand the law or their situation we advocate for change of the law or adjustment of enforcement in order or minimize suffering when and where feasible

This may be a stupid question, but to which 'current events' are you referring?

I believe this is due to the United States and the immigration debates currently happening.

As a Jedi, not only do I advocate not following such laws, I do not encourage the establishment, enforcement, or defense of any such law which would produce the effect of innocent children, some too young to understand the concept of national borders, being detained and organized like cattle. It seems to me an entirely unjust system which would not exist if not for well-armed groups advocating for the unjust treatment of other human beings on the basis of so-called "patriotism", which is really just nationalism.

I do not condone violence except in the case of self-defense, and when a just law is being applied, the person who it is being applied to cannot claim to act in self-defense (unless those who punish them use excessive force). However, I do believe that there is a strong case to be made for the use of violence in order to protect yourself, your loved ones, or anyone else, even if what you are protecting them from is an unjust law.

Those officers who receive orders to enforce these laws need not do so, and indeed if enough of them were to deny the job, the job would not exist. The ICE officials who perform these actions may be doing it for a number of reasons:
1. They genuinely believe in nationalistic values which would devalue the life of "foreign" human beings.
2. They value their paycheck/career more than they do the human rights of these human beings.
3. They do not consider what they are doing to be a violation of the human rights of these human beings.
4. They are "following orders".
For those in the first and third categories, the only solution is intensive education which will dismiss those irrational views from their minds. A comprehensive study of human history and ethics is all that is necessary. In the second and fourth, those are the truly selfish and inconsiderate, and should be regarded as such by as many people as possible as publicly as possible, and as often as possible. Especially in the fourth case, which is of course the typical Nazi apologist rhetoric word-for-word.

If I were to meet someone for the first time and they were to tell me that they work for ICE, I would have to have a long conversation with them -- at the end of which, hopefully, they would quit their job.

Australia has had a similar discussion for about two decades now. So naturally I have an opinion about it
And I was temporarily related indirectly to an officer who worked in border control and he had lots of stories that is for sure.

The thing is that open borders will become less and less possible as populations grow. So people in charge see this influence on the systems they are charged to operate and try to structure the system to work more effectively in all relative areas to balance the stakeholders to serve the need appropriately. And as there will always be wealth disparity its just a reality of it being impossible to achieve equal growth everywhere at the same time, the issue is if your stuck in James Franco's house with Seth Rogan et al during the Apocalypse, you gotta ration out the resources - a pie can only be cut so many times. So an open border to migration is unrealistic economically and in terms of security. But the richer nations usually try to accept refugees...... and if the system is designed to accept 'refugees' then the definition of refugee needs to be quite specific, and the determination of such done by one or both of the receiving nation and external body. The poorer areas will always be relatively less governed and have less opportunity and security, and therefore in comparison untenable - so that alone cannot serve to define a refugee. I'd probably say a practical definition of a refugee is anyone under forcible/violent displacement pressure from ones home nation and also only when arriving at an immediately neighboring safe nation. Because there is the other problem of economic migration pretending to be asylum seeking, which means the valuable dollars intended for the most vulnerable asylum seekers are being used to deal with the relatively wealthy ones who can afford to travel half way across the globe to a preferred destination to claim refugee status.

All that said, its a cruel person who separates young families for the sole reason to act as a deterrent!!!

The details of the USA situation are beyond me, but as Adder had described, the situation is usually somewhat more complex than either the bleeding hearts, or the stone-hearts would have you believe.

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