"Jedi Believe" was Tied....

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...