Poll of TAW for rule

[FenderTL5]

What would you think about having another sticky and link to it from the Statement of Purpose to Topics of Special Consideration? This way, we keep the primary point of our Statement of Purpose while not making 75% of it being about two subjects (discussions of homosexuality and BLM if it is added) besides our original SoP.

I would strongly favor that.

 

[archer75]

What would you think about having another sticky and link to it from the Statement of Purpose to Topics of Special Consideration? This way, we keep the primary point of our Statement of Purpose while not making 75% of it being about two subjects (discussions of homosexuality and BLM if it is added) besides our original SoP. Ever other belief we have is linked from the SoP, not listed there directly.

I like this idea.

 

[Davidnic]

What would you think about having another sticky and link to it from the Statement of Purpose to Topics of Special Consideration? This way, we keep the primary point of our Statement of Purpose while not making 75% of it being about two subjects (discussions of homosexuality and BLM if it is added) besides our original SoP. Every other belief we have is linked from the SoP, not listed there directly.

We could easily do that

 

[FenderTL5]

We could easily do that

Good, because separating the politics from the statement of faith would seem paramount to me.

 

[Dorothea]

What would you think about having another sticky and link to it from the Statement of Purpose to Topics of Special Consideration? This way, we keep the primary point of our Statement of Purpose while not making 75% of it being about two subjects (discussions of homosexuality and BLM if it is added) besides our original SoP. Every other belief we have is linked from the SoP, not listed there directly.

Sounds reasonable and fair to me.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Good, because separating the politics from the statement of faith would seem paramount to me.

Why is it paramount?

 

[FenderTL5]

Why is it paramount?

because our statement of faith should be about our faith, not about a political squabble between two forum members.

 

[gzt]

Why is it paramount?

Because I think it's important that we realize that Christian can in good faith disagree about political conclusions. While there are some means we can't support and some ends we can't support, as well as some ends we must support, beyond that, it's an exercise of a properly formed Christian conscience. Two people can come to very different conclusions about the practical steps to be taken without one being some kind of false Christian.

Of course, the proposed rule makes that less clear.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

because our statement of faith should be about our faith, not about a political squabble between two forum members.

Because I think it's important that we realize that Christian can in good faith disagree about political conclusions. While there are some means we can't support and some ends we can't support, as well as some ends we must support, beyond that, it's an exercise of a properly formed Christian conscience. Two people can come to very different conclusions about the practical steps to be taken without one being some kind of false Christian.

Of course, the proposed rule makes that less clear.

“In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.”

 

[Hermit76]

because our statement of faith should be about our faith, not about a political squabble between two forum members.

More than two. Let's be honest

 

[FenderTL5]

More than two. Let's be honest

I don't know who all of the behind the scene players are, I'm not in the loop on either side. However, there is enough in the posts in this thread to inform where the primary battle is.

 

[AMM]

Because I think it's important that we realize that Christian can in good faith disagree about political conclusions. While there are some means we can't support and some ends we can't support, as well as some ends we must support, beyond that, it's an exercise of a properly formed Christian conscience. Two people can come to very different conclusions about the practical steps to be taken without one being some kind of false Christian.

Of course, the proposed rule makes that less clear.

Yep, politics =/= religion, although there always will be some overlap

I think one issue is condemning an organization (e.g. BLM, but this applies to any political party or other organization. The Boy Scouts or YMCA/YWCA jump to mind) as un-Orthodox rather than condemning certain worldviews (e.g. pro-abortion, pro-sexual immorality, pro-ecumenism, etc.)

 

[gzt]

Yep, politics =/= religion, although there always will be some overlap

I think one issue is condemning an organization (e.g. BLM, but this applies to any political party or other organization. The Boy Scouts or YMCA/YWCA jump to mind) as un-Orthodox rather than condemning certain worldviews (e.g. pro-abortion, pro-sexual immorality, pro-ecumenism, etc.)

I definitely think it's easier to condemn an organization, but that gets complicated - one often finds oneself working alongside people of radically differing views in pursuit of some common good. I think the "worldviews" question is even more muddy for some of these - to give one example, is it "pro-sexual immorality" to think that fornication should not be subject to criminal penalties? In a certain sense, yes. I think very few people here want to make that a criminal offense (or retain it as one where it is). This is why you have to be specific about what you are condemning. This is one problem with the rule - "promotes the LGBTQ agenda" is a horrendously vague statement. What does that even mean?

 

[Xenophon]

"Promotes the LGBTQ agenda" is a horrendously vague statement. What does that even mean?

It means the sodomite propaganda that is so common today.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Bevelyn Beatty knows what’s up.

J E S U S - M A T T E R S

 

[gzt]

That is, again, vague. I don't mean to be difficult - there are certainly things you can delineate that are against Orthodox teaching to support, and you don't need to be vulgar to mark them out if that's what's making you resort to indirect terms. But, to give an example from earlier in the thread, I don't think Orthodox Christians must, by necessity, be opposed to workplace protections for gender and sexual identity. I am broadly in favor of workplace protections except where it makes sense, such as religious organization, which should bar employment by fascists, neo-confederates, and other people who dissent from their doctrines and dogmas. But, to circle back from my digression, that is part of the "LGBTQ agenda". Supporting that is supporting the "LGBTQ agenda", at least in part.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

That is, again, vague. I don't mean to be difficult - there are certainly things you can delineate that are against Orthodox teaching to support, and you don't need to be vulgar to mark them out if that's what's making you resort to indirect terms. But, to give an example from earlier in the thread, I don't think Orthodox Christians must, by necessity, be opposed to workplace protections for gender and sexual identity. I am broadly in favor of workplace protections except where it makes sense, such as religious organization, which should bar employment by fascists, neo-confederates, and other people who dissent from their doctrines and dogmas. But, to circle back from my digression, that is part of the "LGBTQ agenda". Supporting that is supporting the "LGBTQ agenda", at least in part.

You know very well LGBTQ agenda means Drag-queen story-hour, and not EEO issues. We’re well past EEO issues. It started out as EEO issues, and it looks like the agenda is headed towards the normalization of pedophilia.

“I don’t mean to be difficult, but excuse me while I obfuscate with EEO.”

You’re quite a few years behind if you think the LGBTQ agenda is concerned with EEO and marriage.

 

[gzt]

Then say that instead of a vague term! But also note that's it's disingenuous to claim that EEO issues are not a battleground - they still are.

 

[archer75]

Let's just put whatever is definitely objectionable in clear language into the statement.

 

[gzt]

Let's just put whatever is definitely objectionable in clear language into the statement.

I mean you can either just say promoting the organization is bad (what does it mean to "promote"?) or give a specific reason why it is bad, but vague terms like the "LGBTQ agenda" just aren't helpful. However, I'll oppose the rule no matter what.