Poll of TAW for rule

[gzt]

But if pro-lifers were to use one slogan that comes from one organization, we would be right to identify that slogan with the organization.

Black Lives Matter is the slogan of hte BLM organization, no matter how much ppl want to pretend it's not, usually for the purpose of being provocative

Yes, I acknowledge that's what you're trying to make be true by repetition.

 

[archer75]

In the statement, what does "promotes the LGBTQ agenda" mean? This phrase can mean a lot of things, some of them are not against Orthodox teaching - eg, I don't think Orthodox teaching requires us to believe that a grocery store should be able to fire a cashier for being gay, but pushing for employment protections would presumably be "[promoting] the LGBTQ agenda". More clarity would be helpful, but keep in mind that I will oppose the rule no matter what change you make.

When it says, "Trademarked images of BLM and publicity from them will not be allowed," in light of ShiFuBill's point about the provenance of the logo in my avatar (ie, it's not trademarked and did not originate from the organization though it was adopted by them), would my avatar still be allowed? I will note I've had it since time immemorial; it predates any controversy here.

Yeah, should make it clear what the agenda is. There are "trans" people who don't support the usual trans chatter but do want not to be fired or assaulted for wearing whatever clothes to work.

 

[Davidnic]

In the statement, what does "promotes the LGBTQ agenda" mean? This phrase can mean a lot of things, some of them are not against Orthodox teaching - eg, I don't think Orthodox teaching requires us to believe that a grocery store should be able to fire a cashier for being gay, but pushing for employment protections would presumably be "[promoting] the LGBTQ agenda". More clarity would be helpful, but keep in mind that I will oppose the rule no matter what change you make.

When it says, "Trademarked images of BLM and publicity from them will not be allowed," in light of ShiFuBill's point about the provenance of the logo in my avatar (ie, it's not trademarked and did not originate from the organization though it was adopted by them), would my avatar still be allowed? I will note I've had it since time immemorial; it predates any controversy here.

That logo was commissioned by the founders of black lives matter from a paid group. There are currently ongoing legal conflicts about branding and trademarks. There was just a workshop at our University about those matters. Because as places step up in support of the movement in general, their legal departments are trying to decide what they can even use.

At the moment under the rule it would not be allowed because it was directly purchased and designed by that organization. And their rights to it are pending.

There are many people vying for image trademarks at the moment. It's actually getting a bit ugly.

 

[gzt]

Note the weasel words - the people he's trying to smear are pretending it's not true - EDIT: to be provocative!

 

[gzt]

That logo was commissioned by the founders of black lives matter from a paid group. There are currently ongoing legal conflicts about branding and trademarks. There was just a workshop at our University about those matters. Because as places step up in support of the movement in general, their legal departments are trying to decide what they can even use.

At the moment under the rule it would not be allowed because it was directly purchased and designed by that organization. And their rights to it are pending.

There are many people vying for image trademarks at the moment. It's actually getting a bit ugly.

Fair enough in terms of image ownership and provenance.

 

[Davidnic]

Keep discussing and be civil and loving to each other.

I'm going to make lunch then the family and I are going for a hike.

So I won't be around for a few hours.

 

[Platina]

I assume that everyone who supports BLM avatars and all that would also be fine with this as an avatar:

 

[gzt]

No.

 

[gzt]

But I don't know that it should be banned.

 

[archer75]

Seems we're talking in circles.

The slogan itself is widely used in a way that is consistent with Orthodox teaching. "Don't act like these people's lives don't matter."

The BLM org promotes stuff that isn't consistent with OC teaching.

Maybe a rule that makes that distinction and says the BLM org is not ok, cannot be promoted.

 

[archer75]

Further, I think CF should police avatars. And TAW shouldn't. Otherwise we end up rejecting inquirers on the basis of their avatar that's ok elsewhere.

 

[walking.away.123]

Edited for pride.

 

[Platina]

Yeah, I wouldn't ban it. But what I would do is create a secrete FB group where I could report anyone who uses it and try to get that person in trouble with their priest and bishop. That's what I would do.

 

[Platina]

In any case, for me it just means southern rock is the best! And there will be a new wave of Allman Bros-Skynyrd-Marshall Tucker-Charlie Daniels type bands!!!!!!!!!!

 

[walking.away.123]

Edited for pride.

 

[gzt]

Seems we're talking in circles.

The slogan itself is widely used in a way that is consistent with Orthodox teaching. "Don't act like these people's lives don't matter."

The BLM org promotes stuff that isn't consistent with OC teaching.

Maybe a rule that makes that distinction and says the BLM org is not ok, cannot be promoted.

I might agree, the only issue is what counts as promotion of that organization. I don't believe anything I've ever said here is promotion of that organization, but some people contend the use of this logo is (I disagree but I might be able to be convinced of this - use of the logo is ubiquitous in connection with the broader movement) and others seem to think any advocacy using the phrase would count (this is trivially wrong) or any attachment to the broader movement would count (also trivially wrong).

 

[rusmeister]

NOTE, I quoted the wrong post - I have edited the language to correct my error
Perhaps it's better discussed in its own thread BUT, my challenge, again, is the word "requirement."

Does the Church require a nuclear family unit?
Yes, I know that's the promoted ideal and the Christian model, but is it required? Do we exclude single parent households from our congregations?

Fender, I believed in your honesty until now. They specifically say DISRUPT THE NUCLEAR (ie father-mother-child) FAMILY. Stop pretending that they don’t say what they actually say!

The Church requires that we strive towards the ideal family, and sets it up that way in our marriage service. It accepts all kinds of brokenness, but not that we praise the broken for being broken, or deny what we ought to desire, the healthy family of father-mother-child, around which extended relations can grow.

I am doubtful that discussion will achieve anything. The lines have been drawn. But there can be no compromise. It must become all one thing or all the other.

 

[rusmeister]

Further, I think CF should police avatars. And TAW shouldn't. Otherwise we end up rejecting inquirers on the basis of their avatar that's ok elsewhere.

We MUST police avatars of our own. We don’t need to police inquirers, we already know they are not Orthodox. The whole issue is around people claiming to be Orthodox.

 

[rusmeister]

Here's an edit I would support, though it's longer this is an important topic:

The organization Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc. and associated organizations and chapters promotes the LGBTQ agenda as part of their mission. Supporting the dignity of African Americans as equal and in the Image of God does not require the support of Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc. The movement to draw attention to the systematic inequality that many face does not require one to support the Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc. organization.

I think language can also be added to make clear that the Black Lives Matter movement is not defined by a single organization.
Also, I believe the current preferred term is Black, not African American.

I oppose your proposed changes because of the legalism that pretends that people do not make associations when in fact they do. This is not a forum for lawyers.

 

[Phronema]

One big movement, several groups (a least one anti-Christian)

Okay, then maybe I misunderstood. My apologies.

So, then how does one distinguish whether, or not we as Orthodox Christians support the one anti-Christian one, or the anti-Christian sentiment they promote, or the one(s) that are not anti-Christian I guess is my hangup.

I realize how ridiculous that looks when I read it back, but the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people in the US who identify as Christians who affirm/promote all kinds of ideas/actions that the Orthodox Church considers to be sinful. A potential seeker, or inquirer could misinterpret what the Orthodox Church's stance on certain sinful actions are if they are quick to make an assumption, but sometimes first impressions are all it takes.