Why I love TAW

[gurneyhalleck1]

I was the same way, Dorothy, same way. As a hardcore Catholic, I voted 100% Republican, straight down the line. Democrats were evil socialist, abortionist-loving gay-pandering pigs out to imprison us all. That was my view. What I liked from what I heard online about Orthodoxy was that there wasn't this oppressive, guilt-trip-driven political mind-control in it. So, when my priest was really pushing HARD at me and especially on this other wonderful parishoner at my church, driving hard the point of Romney being the only morally-acceptable choice and that I'm being selfish voting in my own interests in any form, I had flashbacks to how I used to feel in those "Catholic Answers" days. And hearing all the intense Republican sentiments from so many parishoners, the vitriolic anger toward any Democrats or people of a different perspetive, it has bummed me out, frankly.

Sure, that's understandable. This was the first time I voted using my brain completely by researching all the candidates and not just filling in the circle next to people I didn't know their total stances, but they had an "R" next to them. I'm glad I'm not a political party zombie anymore because it was really blinding and slavery for me. Not saying you or anybody else who happens to be a republican or democrat is a zombie. I just know I was!!!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sure, that's understandable. This was the first time I voted using my brain completely by researching all the candidates and not just filling in the circle next to people I didn't know their total stances, but they had an "R" next to them. I'm glad I'm not a political party zombie anymore because it was really blinding and slavery for me. Not saying you or anybody else who happens to be a republican or democrat is a zombie. I just know I was!!!

haha, yep. I remember a poli sci prof who told me never to vote down the party lines because (a) he/she might not be your typical republican/democrat/whatever and (b) you prolly are not a typical one either

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well my point is simple---if Rus and Gurney think homosexuality is a moral evil and 60-70% of the rest of the populace don't agree, you can't legislate it as a moral evil and prevent these folks from getting married. Personally, I find gay marriage an absurdity, and I don't condone it. However, this country has very mixed views on it. The Orthodox Church is not the official moral code of the United States. My views cannot dictate the laws. The people decide. Same with abortion. If the people didn't want it by a majority to be considered acceptable, it would be outlawed. At this point, murder and rape ARE considered moral evils, so those offenses have legal consequences. Therefore, if the majority or at least a huge chunk of people are opposed to my Christian values, it's silly for me to think I can legislate it and have a representative make these social adjustments. I have to do the heavy lifting myself. I have to get out there and witness, not rely on a guy in D.C. to do it.

Maybe I'm misreading, but it seems like you're setting up an either-or dichotomy. It's obvious to me that one can both engage in personal witness and work to discourage immorality in civil life by legal means.

 

[Dorothea]

I was the same way, Dorothy, same way. As a hardcore Catholic, I voted 100% Republican, straight down the line. Democrats were evil socialist, abortionist-loving gay-pandering pigs out to imprison us all. That was my view. What I liked from what I heard online about Orthodoxy was that there wasn't this oppressive, guilt-trip-driven political mind-control in it. So, when my priest was really pushing HARD at me and especially on this other wonderful parishoner at my church, driving hard the point of Romney being the only morally-acceptable choice and that I'm being selfish voting in my own interests in any form, I had flashbacks to how I used to feel in those "Catholic Answers" days. And hearing all the intense Republican sentiments from so many parishoners, the vitriolic anger toward any Democrats or people of a different perspetive, it has bummed me out, frankly.

Our parish is a mix of democrats and republicans, so I don't have that experience at mine. My priest for the majority of the time, keeps his personal political views to himself. I do know he's conservative, but he doesn't push it on me who to vote for.

What I am keeping an eye on with myself is not swinging all the way to the other extreme because I was far right-winged before this. I am learning to be discerning on that and not to just go totally liberal either. I have to watch myself because I have a tendency to be an All or Nothing sort, so I have to restrain myself and take time to think about what I'm thinking or why I'm for this particular issue. I have to always remember that God is first and I want to do what is pleasing to Him most of all.

 

[Dorothea]

haha, yep. I remember a poli sci prof who told me never to vote down the party lines because (a) he/she might not be your typical republican/democrat/whatever and (b) you prolly are not a typical one either

Yes, and what I found is that I had beliefs or stances that were not really part of the republican platform. I realized that I truly am an Indy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, and what I found is that I had beliefs or stances that were not really part of the republican platform. I realized that I truly am an Indy.

yep, I am one who leans libertarian on some issues. I am only a republican to have a larger say in the primary vote.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hear ya. I agree. I think really both parties do a lot of damage...probably more damage than help to our country. I have to pinch my nose to some degree no matter whom I vote for. I hate a lot of things about Obama, most notably his moral stances on abortion and gays. I just find that, for me, poverty, social security and medicare for seniors, wars, outsourcing, damaging or removing a person's union and career protections and benefits, and the corporate greed are all moral issues for me. Some people see them as merely financial or merely logistical or merely military, I see them in a moral prism...as a result, I lean left more than right often times. But the I'm ok-you're ok peaceful easy feeling of the Left is nauseating.

My priest doesn't see those issues I spelled out as moral stances. The environment, workers, outsourcing, unnecessary wars, all those things aren't on his radar. He focuses on abortion and gays. Those are his moral concerns. I respect those concerns as I share them, but I think the picture is much bigger.

I don't care if a priest is a hardcore right-winger or leftist, as long as they do their job, don't preach at me and load me with guilt trips regarding those things, and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I had a REAAAAAALLY bad experience as an Anglican with a priest and a few parishoners who were so hardcore Republican that it was mockery and stifling absurdity sometimes. It went to the pulpit and coffee hour. Orthodoxy was so refreshing because it WASN'T like that. But last weekend we had the tea party sermon followed by the coffee hour pressure, and that didn't work for me....Anglican flashbacks then Catholic Answers online flashbacks!!! :o:o

Our parish is a mix of democrats and republicans, so I don't have that experience at mine. My priest for the majority of the time, keeps his personal political views to himself. I do know he's conservative, but he doesn't push it on me who to vote for.

What I am keeping an eye on with myself is not swinging all the way to the other extreme because I was far right-winged before this. I am learning to be discerning on that and not to just go totally liberal either. I have to watch myself because I have a tendency to be an All or Nothing sort, so I have to restrain myself and take time to think about what I'm thinking or why I'm for this particular issue. I have to always remember that God is first and I want to do what is pleasing to Him most of all.

 

[katherine2001]

I would like to point out that quite a few pro-life Democrats were elected this election. I do think that people need to remember that neither party has a deadlock on being pro-life or pro-abortion. There are people of both persuasions in both parties. I will choose a pro-life democrat if I have the choice. I used to be a die-hard conservative until I became Orthodox. I don't believe in either same-sex marriage or abortion, but I am also pro-life across the board (I am against war and the death penalty--having grown up in a military family, I am all too aware of what war does to both the soldiers and to their families who have a very altered person on their hands after fighting in a war). Personally, I did not vote this election, as I could not find any candidates that I could in all conscience vote for this time.

 

[Dorothea]

I hear ya. I agree. I think really both parties do a lot of damage...probably more damage than help to our country. I have to pinch my nose to some degree no matter whom I vote for. I hate a lot of things about Obama, most notably his moral stances on abortion and gays. I just find that, for me, poverty, social security and medicare for seniors, wars, outsourcing, damaging or removing a person's union and career protections and benefits, and the corporate greed are all moral issues for me. Some people see them as merely financial or merely logistical or merely military, I see them in a moral prism...as a result, I lean left more than right often times. But the I'm ok-you're ok peaceful easy feeling of the Left is nauseating.

My priest doesn't see those issues I spelled out as moral stances. The environment, workers, outsourcing, unnecessary wars, all those things aren't on his radar. He focuses on abortion and gays. Those are his moral concerns. I respect those concerns as I share them, but I think the picture is much bigger.

I don't care if a priest is a hardcore right-winger or leftist, as long as they do their job, don't preach at me and load me with guilt trips regarding those things, and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I had a REAAAAAALLY bad experience as an Anglican with a priest and a few parishoners who were so hardcore Republican that it was mockery and stifling absurdity sometimes. It went to the pulpit and coffee hour. Orthodoxy was so refreshing because it WASN'T like that. But last weekend we had the tea party sermon followed by the coffee hour pressure, and that didn't work for me....Anglican flashbacks then Catholic Answers online flashbacks!!! :o:o

Aww, I'm sorry that happened. I don't really like to hear political things or a bunch of talk during a sermon where half of it or more is about the upcoming election. Luckily, that hasn't happened with my priest. He mentioned the upcoming election a couple of weeks before it in his homilies, but nothing too detailed, except he did bring up abortion as not being a political issue but a life and moral issue and that people have said priests shouldn't talk about such things, and he said that he is teaching the Church's teachings, and abortion is wrong. That was a small part of one homily he did recently. I had no problem with that. He didn't get into any other subjects with regards to the election, so that was good. He went on with the Gospel reading and such. He mostly talks about staying in the fight - spiritual warfare - and basically keeping our eye on God.

 

[ArmyMatt]

personally, I could care less if a priest happens to make a political point in a sermon or in a talk, provided it is from a theological perspective and the political point just happens to fall in line with it.

bummer you had to hear that gurney

 

[Dorothea]

I would like to point out that quite a few pro-life Democrats were elected this election. I do think that people need to remember that neither party has a deadlock on being pro-life or pro-abortion. There are people of both persuasions in both parties. I will choose a pro-life democrat if I have the choice. I used to be a die-hard conservative until I became Orthodox. I don't believe in either same-sex marriage or abortion, but I am also pro-life across the board (I am against war and the death penalty--having grown up in a military family, I am all too aware of what war does to both the soldiers and to their families who have a very altered person on their hands after fighting in a war). Personally, I did not vote this election, as I could not find any candidates that I could in all conscience vote for this time.

Your views are very much the same as mine, Katherine. I voted for Danny Woodring because I agreed with him on so many issues: He is pro-life, not totally for death penalty, wants us out of the unnecessary wars we're in, is for alternative green energy like wind, solar, and other such things, is for helping to rebuilt our bridges, roads, etc., and he is for holding big banker crooks accountable. Obviously, he didn't win, but the point wasn't "Who do I vote for who has a good chance of winning" because then you are forced to choose between the forced choices spoon fed to us. But rather, "who best represents my beliefs and stances on issues?"

 

[Dorothea]

personally, I could care less if a priest happens to make a political point in a sermon or in a talk, provided it is from a theological perspective and the political point just happens to fall in line with it.

bummer you had to hear that gurney

Yeah, I feel the same, really.

 

[rusmeister]

Well my point is simple---if Rus and Gurney think homosexuality is a moral evil and 60-70% of the rest of the populace don't agree, you can't legislate it as a moral evil and prevent these folks from getting married. Personally, I find gay marriage an absurdity, and I don't condone it. However, this country has very mixed views on it. The Orthodox Church is not the official moral code of the United States. My views cannot dictate the laws. The people decide. Same with abortion. If the people didn't want it by a majority to be considered acceptable, it would be outlawed. At this point, murder and rape ARE considered moral evils, so those offenses have legal consequences. Therefore, if the majority or at least a huge chunk of people are opposed to my Christian values, it's silly for me to think I can legislate it and have a representative make these social adjustments. I have to do the heavy lifting myself. I have to get out there and witness, not rely on a guy in D.C. to do it.

Thanks. That makes sense. You mean "when you have a majority".
But most people by that expression generally mean "even attempt to impose a moral view by voting". That's what I was aimng at.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I would like to point out that quite a few pro-life Democrats were elected this election. I do think that people need to remember that neither party has a deadlock on being pro-life or pro-abortion. There are people of both persuasions in both parties. I will choose a pro-life democrat if I have the choice. I used to be a die-hard conservative until I became Orthodox. I don't believe in either same-sex marriage or abortion, but I am also pro-life across the board (I am against war and the death penalty--having grown up in a military family, I am all too aware of what war does to both the soldiers and to their families who have a very altered person on their hands after fighting in a war). .

So glad for the many Pro-Life Democrats who became prominent and more on the scene, as the work they've done over the years at finding real solutions for addressing abortion practically has been inspiring...and indeed, there are people on all sides of the issue of Pro-Life and no camp has the lock on it. Thank you for noting, by the way, what you did as it concerns military families and the ways people don't consider the reality of military families and what war really does to others - for one can't claim to be "pro-life" simply because of fighting for laws against abortion and yet be for advancing the military-industrial complex and excessive funding in war while neglecting what happens to the soldiers/combatants who come back with much in regards to hindered lives...be it crippled bodies or Post-traumatic syndrome and families who are often broken because they're not present.

 

[Faithful Skeptic]

To FS: First of all, we ARE commanded to submit to civil authorities. Anarchy is inconsistent with that, for it denies the authority in general. It is true that they do not have authority to dictate that we act in contradiction with our Faith, but they DO have authority in general. Anarchy is a thing that destroys civilization and is the opposite and enemy of freedom.

Where exactly is this commandment? If you're referring to Romans, then I don't think it quite says as much as many stretch it to say. All it says is to render under Caesar that which is his. It never explains what Caesar's is, though. In those times, the Emperor personally owned the currency and it had his face stamped on it. The populace merely used the currency, but it was always his personal property. Moreover, if you don't quote mine that line or two and read it in the greater context of the passage, I think it's saying something a bit different.

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

I read Romans 13 just like the passage on why slaves should not rebel against their masters. We ought not hate the government and those that make up the government and fight against them for our selfish desires. That would be worrying about worldly things which we're obviously not supposed to do. I don't advocate for a violent overthrow of the government, or anything. I advocate for peaceful, loving resistance. However, if we resist the government in order to help our fellow man and admonish the sins that it commits in our names and with our very own money, then I don't really see a problem with that at all. It is very specific. So long as the government isn't being/doing awful things, then you should just let it be, much like the slave should continue to submit to his master. Don't worry about worldly things and worry about the otherworldly. However, when it sins, hate its sins and do not abide by them. If you want to try and tell me that the government doesn't often sin, and sin horribly, then I don't think this conversation is going to get anywhere. There is only one Law and that is His. If civil law doesn't contradict His law, then leave it be. If it does, then do not abide by it. Civil government is an unnecessary middle man. The only Law that matters is His, and we have already received it. I'm more along the lines of a Tolstoyan anarchist, but one that is still perfectly fine with Orthodoxy.

 

[rusmeister]

Where exactly is this commandment? If you're referring to Romans, then I don't think it quite says as much as many stretch it to say. All it says is to render under Caesar that which is his. It never explains what Caesar's is, though. In those times, the Emperor personally owned the currency and it had his face stamped on it. The populace merely used the currency, but it was always his personal property. Moreover, if you don't quote mine that line or two and read it in the greater context of the passage, I think it's saying something a bit different.




I read Romans 13 just like the passage on why slaves should not rebel against their masters. We ought not hate the government and those that make up the government and fight against them for our selfish desires. That would be worrying about worldly things which we're obviously not supposed to do. I don't advocate for a violent overthrow of the government, or anything. I advocate for peaceful, loving resistance. However, if we resist the government in order to help our fellow man and admonish the sins that it commits in our names and with our very own money, then I don't really see a problem with that at all. It is very specific. So long as the government isn't being/doing awful things, then you should just let it be, much like the slave should continue to submit to his master. Don't worry about worldly things and worry about the otherworldly. However, when it sins, hate its sins and do not abide by them. If you want to try and tell me that the government doesn't often sin, and sin horribly, then I don't think this conversation is going to get anywhere. There is only one Law and that is His. If civil law doesn't contradict His law, then leave it be. If it does, then do not abide by it. Civil government is an unnecessary middle man. The only Law that matters is His, and we have already received it. I'm more along the lines of a Tolstoyan anarchist, but one that is still perfectly fine with Orthodoxy.

I see you are familiar with the book of Romans. But even the New Testament is bigger than that, What about 1 Peter?

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
16 [Act] as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

Anarchy against lawful authority (that is not telling you to stamp on a cross or renounce your faith) is inconsistent with that. Not that I wish to engage in Scripture wars with anyone - as Orthodox Christians, we should be looking to the Church, to our priests, to Holy Tradition, and to the rest of us in general, to check us on our own ideas about things.

So it matters greatly what you would resist and why. The slave does not merely let his master be, in submitting to him, he must also obey him, like it or not. There ARE exceptions, there IS a time for civil disobedience, but on the whole, in normal circumstances, submission and honor means obedience.

The government doesn't sin. People sin. People in the government sin. They may sin, we may hate their sins (and sadly, forget the need to hate our own even more in doing so), but mere sin does not call for anarchy. Nothing, in fact, calls for anarchy. It is also practically impossible to come up with Christian justification for revolution. (I don't say it's completely impossible, but it is improbable in the extreme.) The normal response of the Church when the people have no power and evil and persecution are on the march is martyrdom, not revolution. If we HAVE lawful power, of course we should use it for good. But too many of the reactions to evil wind up being themselves evil. The demons still get to laugh at us. We still lose, because we don't take up our crosses.

 

[ArmyMatt]

plus to tag off of what rus just pointed out, you never know exactly what purpose God has for those in power, no matter who it is. even in the OT, God called Nebuchadnezzer, the most vile king ever, not only My servant, but My christ.