Regarding Current Events

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.

Criticizing, nitpicking, context, intent… all completely irrelevant as far as I can tell. The spirit of the message is following TotJO doctrine. And, it does not suggest anything illegal or questionable. It says that “we” advocate for change. And that is exactly how it should be done.

The only question I have, and people are going to use excuse to sidestep the simple reality, how does the law catch innocent people? And ignorance of the law is no excuse. The rationale of that doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking.

I agree that the current solution is not ideal. And, something should be done about it. Recently there was a piece of legislation presented that would deny a government agency from separating children from persons of criminal violation within 100 miles of a border. I don’t remember exactly how it was worded, but I do remember reading it and the possibilities that particular charm would open to criminal defense attorneys and criminals as a whole was terrifying. It was vague as to the government agency and border.

I personally don’t care if people come to the US. I would like to be able to stop “bad” people from getting in; but seriously, how can you really do that!?!? Another option people don’t seem to consider would be the annexing of Mexico and all the smaller countries in the south Central America area. It could be subdivided into separate states, increase the tax base considerable, give US agencies the opportunity to eliminate hostile forces the Mexican government doesn’t seem to be able to deal with and eliminate the need for concern over a Southern border. Just annex it all, all the way down to the Panama Canal.

Just to be clear...

The intent of the original post was a general statement of belief intended for individual application to any situation? If so, that sounds a lot like doctrine . Which is okay, although doctrinal change is a pretty heavy lift compared to taking up a position on policy, and usually a very well thought-out and deliberate process over a reaction. I don’t think THIS is a heavy lift, though, because I think current doctrine captures the spirit of what you’re saying quite well. Advocating for positive change is written all over our teachings.

So let's go with a doctrinal shift here, setting aside that it was made in a context - the one in the title. We just weren't clear on which one, which was a deliberate decision. We are clear now, but let's set that aside.

I, and every Knight who has taken the Solemn Vow has equity in not just knowing what we represent and what we uphold, but weighing in on it as well.

Though, in saying all this, I defer to the Council's judgment. I, for one, believe all of your hearts are in the right place.

Before I go any further- thank you to MadHatter who has clarified the situation and actually (as a council member) did make the first move to stand with Rosalyn.

Onto the actual topic:

Westcli-
Annexing: I don’t think it would be wise to annex Mexico & Central America into the USA. We are already in a massive amount of debt, and trying to resolve the issues of those countries with what little we have would be an undertaking we cannot afford. Furthermore, you were in the Middle East and should be more than aware of the painstaking problems American Troops faced in trying to train "our mindset" into their police and/or emergency medical services. This very same problem is something we would face in Central American cultures- they are too riddled with their own problems that they know how to survive with what they grew up in, trusting that we have a better solution is probably the largest obstacle we'd face.

Furthermore, to do so, would invite the world stage to grow even more wary of the US. Not to mention the conspiracy theorists who would jump on the bandwagon that it's indicative of a One World Order ( :evil: ). So the next issue we would face is the potential for another world war. We already have an event on the world's stage that could lead us to one, if the masses were given full access to the Russian conquest atm.

I can go on and on about these two points, and probably find more along the way- it's a bad idea to go that route.

Ignorance of the Law: Completely agree with you on this point. And will add some information here:

During the Obama Administration there was a push for a media campaign across Mexico & Central America to speak on the dangers of crossing over to the US, and how one could do so legally. This brochure is believed to have curved the illegal immigration numbers (to read up on the campaign that was short lived in 2015 https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/immigration-action/know-facts-public-information-campaign . If we are not doing this now, given it's success in the past it would certainly be a good idea to relaunch it with an update to current geo-political issues of the region.

The complexities of issues at the border are much more difficult to figure out. We see a lot of people using the card "It's not illegal to seek asylum!", no it's not. But if you're crossing the border somewhere other than the check-point, then you are committing a crime, the "asylum card" is not a consideration.

That said, there is at least one incident I can find where the case was that CBP DID separate a parent from their child at a port of entry, and the ACLU is seeking justice for this poorly handled situation (As of 25 June, the case has been approved to move forward). In many cases, the law is not the issue, but the execution of the law (which is a failure of all parties from the top to the LEOs on the frontlines). To follow the ACLU's case, you can find all releases on the matter here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/ms-l-v-ice


Breaking into one of my personal frowns into the whole situation is the conditions by which the children are subjected to when they are taken into custody. I was a guard at a detainee facility for 14 months, and we had a fair amount of underage sons that were detained simply because they were with a singular parent when American forces picked them up. They were suppose to only be in our facility for 2 weeks max (we paid them if they were released, so there's at least that ), but we honestly didn't have the best set up for them. We couldn't' unite them with their father until their father was cleared of wrong doing (we only ever had a female in the facility once, and it was less than 12 hours), or if their father was found guilty, then we'd have to figure out how to get them to another relative. It wasn't great. The most we could do for them was to give them opportunities to get out into the sun (and if they had siblings present try to let them see one another- it's all very complicated). This practice was a bit heart-wrenching to have to undergo. However, when I look at what American forces were given to deal with the situation, it's the best we had. Now I look at the border and I wonder "why can't we spring for some better conditions on our own soil?". In Iraq we housed up to 3 at a time (it never got more than that), but at the border, those numbers are a great deal larger. It seems to me, we could do something to improve upon their living conditions knowing that it's the only real solution we have to deal with unaccompanied children, those separated from their parents who have committed a crime with them in tote, and even the ill-handled problems that CBP has been exposed for in recent months.

It's complex. Law/Policy is not the only factor here. A large number of issues should be worked on.

"To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status."

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states


May The Force Be With You.