Expelled from the Jedi Order

[The Romulan Republic]

Good may be presented as weaker in certain contexts, but it ultimately prevails. Its more a side effect, I think, of the classic underdog fighting against tyranny plot line, for which good having less military force is rather obligatory.

I would question the contention, though, that the Republic's democracy is portrayed as good. Good in theory, perhaps-its fall is certainly treated as a tragedy-, but riddled with corruption by the PT.

[Rogue 9]

Also, arguing that bringing the Force into balance means killing most of the Jedi doesn't actually equate to arguing that killing most of the Jedi was a good thing unless the argument also includes the assertion that balancing the Force was inherently good. If it is indeed the case that balancing the Force means killing a bunch of Jedi and the ascendance of the Sith, I think it far more likely that the Jedi simply misunderstood the prophecy and what it meant by "balance" rather than believing their own extermination desirable.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well obviously the Jedi did not believe their Order should be exterminated.

Balancing the Force sounds fairly positive, but I suppose you could argue that the Jedi misunderstood what it meant.

Though as I recall, Lucas himself reportedly said it meant destroying the Sith (though I don't have a source for that).

[Lord Revan]

He said it at least in the DVD commentary for ROTJ.

That said I belive that disbanding the Jedi Order was needed for the Republic to rebuilt or "healed", as the old Order had become too bloated and locked in its ways to be able to heal the problems of the Republic, that said I don't think that killing of the Jedi or the rise of the Empire was needed for that.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think that the Jedi Order required more oversight from the Republic government. Yes, freedom of religion is important, but the Jedi were operating as an arm of the Republic government (which in and of itself raises some issues with separation of Church and State). Of course, for this to work, the Republic would have to not be hopelessly corrupt.

[Lord Revan]

I think that the Jedi Order required more oversight from the Republic government. Yes, freedom of religion is important, but the Jedi were operating as an arm of the Republic government (which in and of itself raises some issues with separation of Church and State). Of course, for this to work, the Republic would have to not be hopelessly corrupt.

seperation of church and state isn't needed to have freedom of religion and besides it seems there's no jedi "church" in the way that "state church" are generally unstood to be.

[Adam Reynolds]

Good may be presented as weaker in certain contexts, but it ultimately prevails. Its more a side effect, I think, of the classic underdog fighting against tyranny plot line, for which good having less military force is rather obligatory.

That is at least partially the cause, but unlike action movies, Luke doesn't kill Vader and the Emperor. The scene in which Vader kills the Emperor fits what I was describing. It is through the power of sacrifice that good is able to be victorious.

I would question the contention, though, that the Republic's democracy is portrayed as good. Good in theory, perhaps-its fall is certainly treated as a tragedy-, but riddled with corruption by the PT.

It was corrupt as a result of the inherent weakness. Look at the character of Valorum in TPM. He is portrayed as honest and attempting to do the right thing, but powerless to execute it.

Also, arguing that bringing the Force into balance means killing most of the Jedi doesn't actually equate to arguing that killing most of the Jedi was a good thing unless the argument also includes the assertion that balancing the Force was inherently good. If it is indeed the case that balancing the Force means killing a bunch of Jedi and the ascendance of the Sith, I think it far more likely that the Jedi simply misunderstood the prophecy and what it meant by "balance" rather than believing their own extermination desirable.

I believe in the novelization(I don't currently have it to check) as an expansion of the scene in which Yoda mentioned that the prophecy may have been misread, he mentioned that the prophecy said nothing about a requirement that the chosen one be a Jedi.

I think that the Jedi Order required more oversight from the Republic government. Yes, freedom of religion is important, but the Jedi were operating as an arm of the Republic government (which in and of itself raises some issues with separation of Church and State). Of course, for this to work, the Republic would have to not be hopelessly corrupt.

That was really what was wrong with the Jedi, that they became attached to the REpulbic itself. The ROTS novelization again went into this issue with Mace Windu. While Jedi were supposed to avoid attatchment, Mace Windu was stated to be in love with the ideal of the Republic. As it was falling apart around him he was unable to see just how bad it had become.

The Jedi may not have needed a cleansing, but the Republic did.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think that the Jedi Order required more oversight from the Republic government. Yes, freedom of religion is important, but the Jedi were operating as an arm of the Republic government (which in and of itself raises some issues with separation of Church and State). Of course, for this to work, the Republic would have to not be hopelessly corrupt.

seperation of church and state isn't needed to have freedom of religion and besides it seems there's no jedi "church" in the way that "state church" are generally unstood to be.

Well, the Jedi are a fairly unusual case, in that they are very selective about who they take, as opposed to a typical church getting converts, their faith is at least partly based on scientifically verifiable and quantifiable superhuman abilities, and they are so powerful that the state arguably can't really afford not to heavily oversee their actions.

[SAMAS]

How do the prequels imply anything else?

With the prequels, it becomes not just Luke's rise, but Anakin's redemption as well. While it can be argued that being the Last of His Kind makes Luke "special" as The Hero, it becomes rather unnecessary for his role as his father's redeemer.

[Adam Reynolds]

How do the prequels imply anything else?

With the prequels, it becomes not just Luke's rise, but Anakin's redemption as well. While it can be argued that being the Last of His Kind makes Luke "special" as The Hero, it becomes rather unnecessary for his role as his father's redeemer.

That is not the same as evidence for the presence of other Jedi.

[SAMAS]

How do the prequels imply anything else?

With the prequels, it becomes not just Luke's rise, but Anakin's redemption as well. While it can be argued that being the Last of His Kind makes Luke "special" as The Hero, it becomes rather unnecessary for his role as his father's redeemer.

That is not the same as evidence for the presence of other Jedi.

Of course not. But that wasn't the point. remember, I started this little chain in response to this:

That was similarly a problem with the EU that was written immediately after ROTS. So much for Luke being "the Last Jedi."

[Adam Reynolds]

Of course not. But that wasn't the point. remember, I started this little chain in response to this:

I meant that as a criticism of the EU, not as an endorsement for the idea that there were other Jedi.