Poll of TAW for rule

[rusmeister]

I'm going to bed. I spent a few hours helping local friends decide whether they should start homeschooling, do Virtual School, or send their children back to face to face in the fall. We homeschool so people ask us a lot about how it works right now. I was just checking in here before bed.

But I'm tired and going to sleep. I'll leave the thread open. Please be kind to each other even a disagreement.

Have a blessed evening.

I think most of us are committed to being as kind as we may be, are allowed to be. The one thing we can’t be kind to is a determined insistence on promoting, defending, or teaching (and here I speak more specifically about sexual anarchy) in opposition to clear Orthodox teaching through the centuries. If someone in the Church does that, we have to whale on it. We could report non-Orthodox visitors to staff and leave it at that. You guys have always been good about that. But we cannot tolerate dissent on things that touch on our dogmas. It has to become all one thing or all the other, as Lincoln once said. A house divided itself cannot stand, whether it is a congregational sub-forum or a nation.

 

[rusmeister]

I'm not suppprting the logo.

But anyway, I don't worry so much whether something is bad on its face.

One of your allies IS supporting the logo, very specifically and openly. Nothing to say about that? Silence on it while taking a stand effectively in favor of it is assent.

If something is bad on its face, how can you support it? I see clearly how you can condemn racial injustice when it happens, though I think it futile to single this issue out, and we all agree that racial injustice is bad and evil, and will condemn any proved and certain case when any spin has been cleared away. But demanding those exact words is now inextricably allied with things you ought not countenance, and ought to worry about being associated with by stands you DO take. What’s wrong with “black lives are important”?, saying the same thing yet disassociating yourself from the co-opted expression? The fervor that ought to be associated only with the Faith is associated with that expression; zeal is applied to the wrong thing.
The logo is undeniably associated with the official and very well-funded organization. The specific words are now repeated as a mantra associated with that organization. Defense of those specific words is now, whether you intend it or not, associated by all reasonable people with that organization. You can no more disassociate them now than you can the swastika from the Nazi party, however much of an upset Jainist Hindu you might be.

 

[rusmeister]

I'm going to point out two problems with the rules as stated:

1. The "nuclear family" is a modern concept and is not Orthodox doctrine.
2. Opposition to LGBTQ rights is not Orthodox doctrine.

I’ve pretty much answered this elsewhere.
The family of father-mother-child IS Orthodox doctrine, our marriage service alone is proof of that. And that’s all that the fancy show-off term “nuclear” means. Anything that seeks to disrupt that is against us and our teaching and praxis.
Opposition to sexual sin IS Orthodox doctrine. Opposition to sin in general is our doctrine. The modern acronym is meant specifically to identify people as part of a legitimate abstract social grouping, and to normalize acceptance of the behaviors and actions they cast as state-of-being, the devil’s lie of “This is who I am” as opposed to what we teach: “This is a passion I must fight”.

 

[Platina]

It's very interesting to me that this seems to be the one topic some users are willing to actually engage in to any real degree.

 

[tapi]

I've decided that I don't want to be in an Orthodox space where I have to continually answer why BLM is an evil, anti-Orthodox movement. I'll check back to see how this vote turns out but right now this is not a healthy Orthodox forum. And yes, I feel that this community should speak clearly about this movement. It is a shame that seekers have to come on here and discern our position. To me it is unthinkable that so few have a voice in this issue. Antichrist will appear but we are not required to be hospitable to him or his "spirit."

Do you feel that FB groups turned into echo chambers, such as "Eastern Orthodox Church" and "Eastern Orthodox Gentlemen", which I presume you know if you are active on the FB platform, are "healthy" forums of discussion? An honest question

 

[rusmeister]

Do you feel that FB groups turned into echo chambers, such as "Eastern Orthodox Church" and "Eastern Orthodox Gentlemen", which I presume you know if you are active on the FB platform, are "healthy" forums of discussion? An honest question

I think it fair to question doctrine. Allowing the questioning ends the threat of echo chambers. The trouble is, when the question has been clearly and thoroughly questioned and answered, sometimes people don’t want to hear the answers, they just want to keep affirming what turns out to be, not the corporate vision of the Church, but their private vision, not shared across space and time. It becomes unhealthy to continue “questioning” with no intention of ever accepting the answer. (I don’t know or have anything to do with the groups to which you refer.)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thoroughly agree. MAGA is about sovereignty, American return to production and high output, pro second amendment, fed up with identity politics, no more needless wars, compete with China, make NATO pay up, end abortion, enough PC.....

Racism is a mainstream media attachment to MAGA....Not one Trumper I know is a bigot, but BLM is built on it.

I disagree. A slogan that represents a candidate vs an evil organization. It's not the same thing.

 

[prodromos]

Guess who one of the founders of BLM has close ties to?
Black Lives Matter Founder an Open Supporter of Socialist Venezuelan Dictator Maduro

 

[Hermit76]

Do you feel that FB groups turned into echo chambers, such as "Eastern Orthodox Church" and "Eastern Orthodox Gentlemen", which I presume you know if you are active on the FB platform, are "healthy" forums of discussion? An honest question

I'm not on FB. This is the remaining "social media" platform that I utilize.

 

[Phronema]

Guess who one of the founders of BLM has close ties to?
Black Lives Matter Founder an Open Supporter of Socialist Venezuelan Dictator Maduro

So, I'll go on record as having said that I affirm that black LIFE matters as I believe that is what Christ preached, and is found in the Holy Scriptures. That said I CANNOT get behind the organization "Black Lives Matter". I've waited to reply to this thread as I'm admittedly a bit torn on this issue. I do NOT affirm the acts, behavior, or sinful choices of the "queer or transgender" community that BLM supports. I think that someone who carries this cross are people in need of love, and support, but I cannot affirm their sinful behavior. That goes doubly so for my own sinful behavior as I'm a sinner too, and I don't think that my own sins are any better, and actually are much worse. That's my first problem with the organization "BLM".

Now on to my second point, and why I quoted your post. I've come across this while doing some research into the topic. It's a recording from 2015 of one of the co-founders admitting to being a "trained Marxist". So when one couples that admission to the idea of "destruction of the nuclear family" it doesn't look too promising in my opinion. Then add in that I have relatives who have been into politics for many years who are both Democrats and Republicans, and all of them admit that the leftest most portion of the Democratic Party is the furthest left it has been in the entirety of US history. So the original co-founders being "trained Marxists" is also concerning.

Now I'm torn because it would seem that my conclusion then is similar to @archer75. I do NOT affirm anything that Black Lives Matter stands for aside from black life mattering which is something I believe everyone in this forum would affirm. I'm torn though as to whether, or not a logo is in fact an issue. Now I believe heavily in what the Constitution has to say on the issue, and so I have a hard time stifling someone's freedom of speech. On the other hand had I been a seeker, or inquirer who was new to the forum would I have made the association that people who are Eastern Orthodox affirm trans, and queer activities as apart of Orthodoxy itself when seeing this icon here? That I'm not sure on, and between that, and the ideal of freedom of speech I'm still torn overall. I just wanted to share my thoughts on this issue.

Nonetheless, here is the video I mentioned where one of the co-founders of BLM admits that she, and the other co-founder are "trained Marxists".

 

[rusmeister]

So, I'll go on record as having said that I affirm that black LIFE matters as I believe that is what Christ preached, and is found in the Holy Scriptures. That said I CANNOT get behind the organization "Black Lives Matter". I've waited to reply to this thread as I'm admittedly a bit torn on this issue. I do NOT affirm the acts, behavior, or sinful choices of the "queer or transgender" community that BLM supports. I think that someone who carries this cross are people in need of love, and support, but I cannot affirm their sinful behavior. That goes doubly so for my own sinful behavior as I'm a sinner too, and I don't think that my own sins are any better, and actually are much worse. That's my first problem with the organization "BLM".

Now on to my second point, and why I quoted your post. I've come across this while doing some research into the topic. It's a recording from 2015 of one of the co-founders admitting to being a "trained Marxist". So when one couples that admission to the idea of "destruction of the nuclear family" it doesn't look too promising in my opinion. Then add in that I have relatives who have been into politics for many years who are both Democrats and Republicans, and all of them admit that the leftest most portion of the Democratic Party is the furthest left it has been in the entirety of US history. So the original co-founders being "trained Marxists" is also concerning.

Now I'm torn because it would seem that my conclusion then is similar to @archer75. I do NOT affirm anything that Black Lives Matter stands for aside from black life mattering which is something I believe everyone in this forum would affirm. I'm torn though as to whether, or not a logo is in fact an issue. Now I believe heavily in what the Constitution has to say on the issue, and so I have a hard time stifling someone's freedom of speech. On the other hand had I been a seeker, or inquirer who was new to the forum would I have made the association that people who are Eastern Orthodox affirm trans, and queer activities as apart of Orthodoxy itself when seeing this icon here? That I'm not sure on, and between that, and the ideal of freedom of speech I'm still torn overall. I just wanted to share my thoughts on this issue.

Nonetheless, here is the video I mentioned where one of the co-founders of BLM admits that she, and the other co-founder are "trained Marxists".

Thank you!
In general, I agree. But I'd point out saying that you believe that Christ preached "black lives matter" is problematic. We can READ and examine carefully what He preached. We can read commentary of the fathers on it. But nowhere did He single out a particular race as inherently suffering injustice due to the race itself? find the most we can draw from His words is that all lives matter, which is what all of us have affirmed in one voice all along, making it unnecessary, redundant, and even dangerous to affirm any particular color or ethnicity as more worthy of concern than another (which is what the now-infamous expression means).
I'd guess you probably support stifling the freedom of speech of those who would support the KKK or resurrect the Nazi Party, so the real issue is that you are not sure that the organization and its affiliates actually intend harm and destruction to the teachings of our Faith and to our nation. This, that they do, is precisely what we have been demonstrating all along. There is no significant incidence (maybe you could dig up one or two cases across the nation) of MAGA/Trump backers starting riots, looting, burning, and murdering in the name of fighting injustice. All of that lays squarely in one camp - those who cry the slogan that some so desperately defend, believing that slogan to be the essence of our Faith, and not to be surrendered or modified under any circumstances. You yourself admit that the organizers, funded by Soros, Bank of America, and others, declare themselves to be Marxists. What do you think that means, if not a Russian Revolution in America? How many more Jessica Whitakers and David Dorns have to be murdered before you begin to realize that they mean revolution, and overthrow of the government if we will not surrender it to them peacefully? I'm just saying that you have to open your eyes to that, and see that we are all ready to support the redress of proven injustice against blacks, but that this organization means to sweep Christians who will not bow down to their doctrines aside violently. Those who now defend it will be as shocked as the early die-hard Communists who Stalin later had arrested and shot, once firmly in power. And I'm not promoting a spirit of fear, but of wisdom to see and react in time toturn aside such evils before they happen, if and when we can. We should always at least be on the right side, even when there are many sides.

 

[FenderTL5]

So, I'll go on record as having said that I affirm that black LIFE matters as I believe that is what Christ preached, and is found in the Holy Scriptures. That said I CANNOT get behind the organization "Black Lives Matter"..

..I do NOT affirm the acts, behavior, or sinful choices of the "queer or transgender" community that BLM supports. I think that someone who carries this cross are people in need of love, and support, but I cannot affirm their sinful behavior.

I agree with this. I am not an apologist for BLM, I just want to make sure what we are saying is indeed true. I still have problems with the exact language in the proposed rule.

The purpose is to drive anti-Orthodox thought masking as Orthodox thought promoting the devil’s agenda to rile us up in racial fear and hate in the name of fighting injustice to splinter us into civil war, as well as to increase thought opposed to our Faith among the faithful, making them ultimately not faithful...

On those grounds, I still put MAGA in the same bucket. MAGA is a verbal representation of a vile, immoral, unethical and dishonest person. His rhetoric is confrontational, hate filled, designed to separate and stir strife and division. His supporters include the KKK, white supremacist, skinheads and anarchist.
To say, "Not one Trumper I know is a bigot." may be anecdotal but it is not true of his base. He had at least one openly, alt-right member, on his staff.
I know numerous, I grew up in and around white supremacy and those who, to this day, still wave their confederate flags and preach the Lost Cause. The MAGA imagery is now included into their canon.

I understand this to be separate issue to the one under consideration, so I'll not press further here.
I just want to be clear, supporting MAGA can be just as off-putting to one seeking Christ and The Church as others, such as the one being considered today.

 

[Phronema]

But I'd point out saying that you believe that Christ preached "black lives matter" is problematic. We can READ and examine carefully what He preached. We can read commentary of the fathers on it. But nowhere did He single out a particular race as inherently suffering injustice due to the race itself?

So I agree with you that He nor the Apostles ever singled out any one particular race as having mattered more than another. I was merely using the words "black life matters" to illustrate that I believe that Christ taught that all life did in fact matter, but under that umbrella of all life mattering I don't think that the statement is necessarily untrue that black life in, and of itself does in fact matter. I was also attempting to use the words "black life matter" to contrast the aforementioned words with the organization "Black Lives Matter". I think we agree here entirely though.

I'd guess you probably support stifling the freedom of speech of those who would support the KKK or resurrect the Nazi Party, so the real issue is that you are not sure that the organization and its affiliates actually intend harm and destruction to the teachings of our Faith and to our nation. This, that they do, is precisely what we have been demonstrating all along.

On this one I'd say that no I would NOT support the stifling of the freedom of speech of the KKK, or Nazi Party. It pains me to say that because I truly believe the ideals of the KKK, and Nazi Party to be wholly un-American as their ideals undermine the very pillars of the foundation of our nation as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. So I couldn't disagree with them more, but to take it one step further I dislike them almost as much as I do Marxists because of the aforementioned notion of being un-American coupled with the fact that unfortunately as a conservative myself people associate me, and my ideals with their filthy un-American, and un-Christian ideals.

That said I've spent almost half my life defending the Constitution while apart of the US Armed Forces, and so it is their right to hold those beliefs so long as they don't infringe upon the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others while doing so. So, no. I think they are free to believe, and say what they want, but I don't agree with them.

Last, please make no mistake. I take Marxists, and Marxist led organizations quite seriously, and that's why I've listed it as one of my concerns regarding BLM. I've had family fight in wars against Communists, and I'm a fairly history aware individual as it's a subject that I highly enjoy. So, it's not lost on me what we're dealing with in that lady's admission of being a trained Marxist, or what Marxists have done to/with Christians in the past. Racial inequality is one thing, and is inexcusable, but an insurrection is quite another.

Ultimately I'm still discerning the rule regarding the logo/icon portion. I'll think, and pray about on the issue as I continue to keep track of the thread.


The portion of the Declaration of Independence I referred to above :

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

 

[rusmeister]

I agree with this. I am not an apologist for BLM, I just want to make sure what we are saying is indeed true. I still have problems with the exact language in the proposed rule.


On those grounds, I still put MAGA in the same bucket. MAGA is a verbal representation of a vile, immoral, unethical and dishonest person. His rhetoric is confrontational, hate filled, designed to separate and stir strife and division. His supporters include the KKK, white supremacist, skinheads and anarchist.
To say, "Not one Trumper I know is a bigot." may be anecdotal but it is not true of his base. He had at least one openly, alt-right member, on his staff.
I know numerous, I grew up in and around white supremacy and those who, to this day, still wave their confederate flags and preach the Lost Cause. The MAGA imagery is now .included into their canon.

I understand this to be separate issue to the one under consideration, so I'll not press further here.
I just want to be clear, supporting MAGA can be just as off-putting to one seeking Christ and The Church as others, such as the one being considered today.

MAGA is a secular thing. We need not support it. Its support does not in any way challenge Church teaching, thus, we also need not condemn it. But the chief truth is that its supporters have not started riots or murdered. The actual evils done, however you may feel about the stands, are not commensurate. The measurable evils are being done by people waving the BLM standard, and not the MAGA standard.

The dislike of Trump himself is understandable, unbridled hate is not. The unbridled hate I see is deprived of all reason. That we think him sometimes uncouth we can certainly agree. That less than one percent of his support comes from the KKK and anarchists is less damaging to him than the much larger support of sexual anarchists supporting BLM or trying to infiltrate the Orthodox Church. Can they be off-putting to their enemies? Certainly. I’m sure St Nicholas was as off-putting to the Arians as Arius was to the Orthodox. But as to why you see in Trump an enemy in any other sense than mere political opponent, particularly enemy of the Church, I’d have to ask you to show your hand. We are not concerned about mere politics here.
The political base of the Left is absolutely LOADED with bigots. Not one or two, here and there, but something by now approaching half of it. So when you tell me that you find a few among Trump supporters, I’m not impressed.

I can tell you, as someone outside MAGA, and outside the US altogether, that MAGA supporters see something radically different from what you see. They watch Fox news and the Daily Wire, perhaps, to all appearances you watch MSNBC and CNN. I watched Trump’s speech last Friday and found myself impressed. I haven’t heard anyone speak like that in decades. They were the words of a more civilized age. But that is mere politics. It is enough for us that their moral teachings openly conflict with the teachings of our Church. And politics be damned. It is extremely secondary to our eternal souls. If you don’t like MAGA, fine. But do not give even the appearance of aligning yourself with a group that has openly espoused anti-Christian values.

 

[FenderTL5]

MAGA is a secular thing. We need not support it..

Agree.

The political base of the Left is absolutely LOADED with bigots. Not one or two, here and there

The right is bigoted, not just one or two, its filled with them just like the left.

MAGA supporters see something radically different from what you see. They watch Fox news and the Daily Wire, perhaps, to all appearances you watch MSNBC and CNN.

I read a variety of print publications (online). I do not watch the 24 hour news cycle, national groups from any persuasion (to any measurable length anyway.. it's not 100% avoidable). I do not watch TV news outside of the local broadcast, I don;t even have 'cable'. Fox News and the Wire are just as extreme right as Huffington Post or Mother Jones is to the left. That could be your problem, not mine.
I worked media for several years, I know how the sausage is made. I still have my media badges/passes for the state capitol where I worked every day. But to be clear, I'm no longer doing it full-time.

I watched Trump’s speech last Friday and found myself impressed. I haven’t heard anyone speak like that in decades..

I tried watching him yesterday afternoon. I'm sorry, he comes across as a complete narcissistic moron to me. That could be said of other politicians as well, but Trump takes it to the extreme levels.

It was not a major reason, but a concern I had in my previous tradition before Orthodoxy, was that the preaching and visuals had become more political than Christian. Complete services were at times expressions of patriotism with only a passing mention of Christ/God (such as the patriotic song God Bless America). Sunday School time was focused on issues like the state lottery and fund-raising for political candidates. I loathe the idea that could be happening in Orthodoxy.

I oppose any political/social concept, right or left, that runs counter to the Church and the teaching of Jesus Christ.

 

[FenderTL5]

To the topic at hand.
I could support the rule if the first sentence were struck entirely. I still see it as partially untrue, specifically the opening phrase.
I could even agree if the opening phrase were amended to say, "The organization Black Lives Matter does not promote a nuclear family requirement.."
However that seems superfluous and its easier and more succinct to just strike the first sentence altogether.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I could even agree if the opening phrase were amended to say, "The organization Black Lives Matter does not promote a nuclear family requirement.."

even though I am fine with the statement as presented, I would not have an issue with this edit.

 

[Davidnic]

To the topic at hand.
I could support the rule if the first sentence were struck entirely. I still see it as partially untrue, specifically the opening phrase.
I could even agree if the opening phrase were amended to say, "The organization Black Lives Matter does not promote a nuclear family requirement.."
However that seems superfluous and its easier and more succinct to just strike the first sentence altogether.

Would: "promotes the disruption of the nuclear family" work since that is a quote from them.

 

[gzt]

But once again, the "nuclear family", as being discussed there, is not a doctrine of the Orthodox Church.

 

[Phronema]

To the topic at hand.
I could support the rule if the first sentence were struck entirely. I still see it as partially untrue, specifically the opening phrase.
I could even agree if the opening phrase were amended to say, "The organization Black Lives Matter does not promote a nuclear family requirement.."
However that seems superfluous and its easier and more succinct to just strike the first sentence altogether.

even though I am fine with the statement as presented, I would not have an issue with this edit.

The issue I have though is that BLM does in fact promote both the disruption of the nuclear prescribed family, and LGBT agenda as part of their mission. Below I've linked a portion of their mission statement. So, with due respect they DO promote an LGBT agenda. In particular the portion that mentions "the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather the belief that all in the world are heterosexual". That portion seems to conflict with what I've been told/taught that the correct believing bishops teach, and the Church Fathers confirm. That is more specifically that what they're experiencing is a result of worldly sinful passions, and not that of God's creation, or intention for that act post-fall which was for procreation.

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.


We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."

Their mission statement is found here : https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-w...uM73P8WOFU6LDYLPrRM-nagKrp0yor-WaH9c_l6JT0qR2