Poll of TAW for rule

[rusmeister]

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.

Sometimes love requires harder approaches. Some of us have had dealings for quite a few years now.

Yes, ShiFuBill makes a good point that I've been trying to get to here - we're spending far too much time parsing out statements by an organization or its representatives that doesn't define the movement. It's like trying to define the pro-life movement by one organization - which is something that pro-choice advocates try to do sometimes!

You guys can pull all the legal claims you want to. It is effectively a very disorganized organization, but it IS in fact AN organization, agreed and committed to supporting others bearing the name in their common aims.

Trying to pretend that they have nothing to do with each other is disingenuous. It’s a little like saying that the Nazi group in Dusseldorf is not the same as the one in Berlin or the one in Chicago. They just share a common name, and otherwise, have nothing in common.

 

[rusmeister]

So therein lies my problem regarding the logos again. It's very difficult to distinguish between someone who's affirming the organization itself (not good imo) to someone who's saying they believe black life matters (good imo). As they are very different messages in my eyes, and one of those impressions lies in line with what the Church teaches, and the other is not.

It’s not difficult. It’s impossible. And that’s the whole point.

 

[rusmeister]

This would be over in a minute if you guys would agree to change logos to colors not used by their organizations and the words “black life is sacred, too”. That would cause no stir and unconditionally disconnect you from the organizations.

 

[Phronema]

For what it's worth @Davidnic has revamped the OP as well.

 

[gzt]

One sloppy bit of rhetoric I see throughout here is people insisting certain things are incompatible with being an Orthodox Christian. An Orthodox Christian can be a Marxist, for instance (EDIT: see for instance Mack, Merav. "Orthodox and communist: A history of a Christian community in Mandate Palestine and Israel." British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 42.4 (2015): 384-400.), despite the insistence of some here that the fact founders of the BLM organization have mentioned being influenced by Marxism must mean that the BLM organization must be forbidden for Orthodox Christians. The conclusion may very hold, but not for that reason. We must be very careful not to conflate the demands of our particular political persuasions with our faith, there are many such cases.

 

[FenderTL5]

I have a history of edits so I can revert at any point.

Please look at the statement now and change or keep your vote.

I made edits to clarify what will be allowed and not allowed as images and address the concerns over the first line.

I can and will change my vote to a yes with the current language.

 

[archer75]

One sloppy bit of rhetoric I see throughout here is people insisting certain things are incompatible with being an Orthodox Christian. An Orthodox Christian can be a Marxist, for instance (EDIT: see for instance Mack, Merav. "Orthodox and communist: A history of a Christian community in Mandate Palestine and Israel." British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 42.4 (2015): 384-400.), despite the insistence of some here that the fact founders of the BLM organization have mentioned being influenced by Marxism must mean that the BLM organization must be forbidden for Orthodox Christians. The conclusion may very hold, but not for that reason. We must be very careful not to conflate the demands of our particular political persuasions with our faith, there are many such cases.

Present-day Marxism has little to do with the writings of Karl Marx. It's little more than a cult that sprays his name on to appear connected to a man with a beard. "Intellectual" junk food.

 

[rusmeister]

I don’t see a substantive change of any concern. I would strongly suggest that the words “sexual anarchy, aka” be added before the choice term of the Enemy, “LGBTQ”. True language ought to replace their deceptive and ever-changing acronyms.

 

[Phronema]

Present-day Marxism has little to do with the writings of Karl Marx. It's little more than a cult that sprays his name on to appear connected to a man with a beard. "Intellectual" junk food.

That may be the case, but having read the Communist Manifesto I know full well that Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels called religion the "opium of the people", and weren't big fans of religion in general. They certainly don't have anything positive to say about it, and admittedly I read it 15 years ago, but I do recall they weren't fans of religion, and saw it as a problem for the proletariat in general.

On that note these modern Marxists may not have anything to do with Marx, or Engels, but I take what they say they are at face value. If a person tells me they're a Nazi I'm going to go about thinking that they in fact ascribe to Hitler's, and the rest of the Nazi parties beliefs, or they would've chosen to associate with someone, or something else.

So, while some version of communism may have existed in Orthodoxy at some place, and at some point in the past I think the evidence that exists overwhelmingly points to Marxists, and communists in general being pretty anti-Christian in ideology, and action. BLM isn't doing that sentiment any favors either. Shall we ask our friends in China how well religion is doing there? Or in Vietnam where if you're Christian you can't work directly for the government as one of our resident TAW posters has mentioned in the past.

I stand by what I said in that Marxists, Marxism, and communism isn't compatible with Christianity in my opinion.

 

[gzt]

Okay, but socialist parties - including explicitly Marxist ones - are a part of the parliaments of many existing countries in the West, even part of ruling coalitions. In Latin America, they are often religious and often more allied with the Church than the right-wing parties, with the advent of liberation theology. I don't think taht parallel really works.

 

[rusmeister]

Okay, but socialist parties - including explicitly Marxist ones - are a part of the parliaments of many existing countries in the West, even part of ruling coalitions. In Latin America, they are often religious and often more allied with the Church than the right-wing parties, with the advent of liberation theology. I don't think taht parallel really works.

GZ, I live in Russia. amid the ruins of Marxism and have a huge cross erected to the New Martyrs of Russia across the street from where I live. A lot of people in my town don't like that cross and agitated to get it removed, unsuccessfully, fortunately. The fruit of Marxism is Communism, it is godless by its ideology. You are really backing some bad ideas. (FWIW, I say capitalism sucks, too.)

 

[gzt]

One thing I worry about is people trying to push moderation rules that are not intended to keep discussion civil and confined to the doctrines and teachings of the Orthodox Church but rather to suppress people within the Church that one party within the Church doesn't like. I think some people have been explicit that the latter is their goal, though it certainly isn't the goal of the administrators and moderators. I appreciate that moderation is hard and cannot be done in a rules-lawyering way because that leads to bad faith abuses of the moderation process, which is why trying to hammer out the exact right definition in the rule would miss the point. But badgering people about things that are not against the teachings of the Church is not something to encourage using the rules of the forum, it should be explicitly discouraged: that is a rule which should be put in rather than this one.

 

[rusmeister]

But badgering people about things that are not against the teachings of the Church is not something to encourage using the rules of the forum

Opposition to LGBTQ rights is not Orthodox doctrine.

Condemning sexual sin IS Orthodox teaching, and affirming a "right" to it is decidedly against Orthodox teaching. How much Scripture and Church fathers do you need to see that? (Assuming you acknowledge the authority of our Tradition to teach and correct us, an essential requirement of Orthodox life)

This is why I can't take your words seriously. You pick and choose what you want to believe to be Orthodox, rather than accepting that there is a consensus of established teaching that can correct us. There is hardly any issue of earthly life in which this is more clear and iron-clad than sexuality, and then complain about being "badgered about things that are 'not against the teachings of the Church'".

I'm always open to reconciliation, GZ. But submission to demonstrable Church teaching is non-negotiable. You can even correct me from that consensus.

 

[Dorothea]

I'll think on this for a while, considering I've had my fill of all the insanity in this world that seems to keep going. Divisions, hate, insane sayings and ideas thrown about throughout social media. Cancel culture - the biggest insanity at this moment. It's like things just keep getting worse and worse. The evil one is having a picnic with all the destruction and hate going on in the world. Because of all of this, I'm not ready to take on another issue with a rule on language and beliefs and disallowing voices. We're in desperate need of civil discourse in this country. I think the answer is somewhere in between.

Sorry. Give me some time...

 

[archer75]

That may be the case, but having read the Communist Manifesto I know full well that Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels called religion the "opium of the people", and weren't big fans of religion in general. They certainly don't have anything positive to say about it, and admittedly I read it 15 years ago, but I do recall they weren't fans of religion, and saw it as a problem for the proletariat in general.

On that note these modern Marxists may not have anything to do with Marx, or Engels, but I take what they say they are at face value. If a person tells me they're a Nazi I'm going to go about thinking that they in fact ascribe to Hitler's, and the rest of the Nazi parties beliefs, or they would've chosen to associate with someone, or something else.

So, while some version of communism may have existed in Orthodoxy at some place, and at some point in the past I think the evidence that exists overwhelmingly points to Marxists, and communists in general being pretty anti-Christian in ideology, and action. BLM isn't doing that sentiment any favors either. Shall we ask our friends in China how well religion is doing there? Or in Vietnam where if you're Christian you can't work directly for the government as one of our resident TAW posters has mentioned in the past.

I stand by what I said in that Marxists, Marxism, and communism isn't compatible with Christianity in my opinion.

No, you're right. I posted in haste. Sorry about that
It ISN'T compatible with Christianity. But it also bothers me that it sounds like this book-learning movement when it isn't even that...

 

[Dorothea]

The Black Lives Matter movement should be distinguished from established groups or organizations within it. I personally condemn any group or person supporting anti-Christian agendas. The phrase "Black Lives Matter" and the consistent voice of the people in the whole movement has been for justice and changes to the police, not to issues specifically anti-Christian.

I support not allowing symbols, trademarks, or debates in support of this organization: Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc. which has this website, on which they make the anti-traditional family, pro-LGBTQ agenda, and other offensive statements:
https://blacklivesmatter.com/
This is their official logo:
https://blacklivesmatter.com/wp-content/themes/blm/dist/images/logo-black-lives-matter.png
Their about page states:
"#BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer. Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada"
The same group appears to also use the name Black Lives Matter Global Network (possibly their international organization):
https://www.linkedin.com/company/blmgn/about/
From this article:
Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation establishes $12M grant
they are described as: "the foundation, which has been influential in the emergence of the broader Black Lives Matter movement"
Influential in the movement does not mean the whole movement shares all their goals.

However, that one group should be distinguished from the entirety of the Black Lives Matter movement. While it's true that the founders of Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc. were the first to use the #blacklivesmatter on social media, were involved in the movement's early days, and continue as an organizing structure among the larger movement, the entire movement is larger than their few employees or their regional chapter members. The original movement started during a civil rights protest. The founder's of Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc (or Global Network) added additional agendas as time went on, agendas which are not by default held by everyone who says "black lives matter." The founder can be seen as opportunists, using anger about one thing to raise funds and support to push another agenda.

According to the US Patent and Trademark Office:
“Black Lives Matter” Slogan Belongs to the People - Smith & Hopen
“Black Lives Matter” is not registerable because it is a world renown slogan used to “raise awareness of civil rights, protest violence, and convey the message of support for the same.”
Original source: USPTO TSDR Case Viewer

This logo:
View attachment 280977
Is commonly used in protests. However, it is not a registered logo of the far-left Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc. (by that name or by any other). As far as I can determine, it is not a registered logo of any organization. Wherever the original image originated, it belongs to the people.
The words "black lives matter" has entered the American consciousness as a way to say things are wrong, they need to be fixed.

While I believe there are major problems in American society that need to be fixed, I don't think this is the right time to do it and some opportunists have put people's health in danger because an opportunity, however tragic, arose. This can be especially painful to watch for Christians whose churches have been closed. I'm not comfortable with the direction the current movement has taken, I would like to see it with more leadership from Black clergy. I don't know why that's not the case. I'm concerned about the protest violence, anti-police sentiment and larger cultural movements like many Orthodox. I believe this is an issue here on TAW because American society is polarized along left-right lines, and civil rights is on the left. I think Orthodox Christians who lean right, which seems to be most Christians in America, are making a guilt-by-association argument to make the current civil rights movement seem anti-Christian, latching on to tweets and public individuals rather than the larger issues.

I don't agree with banning any support for the movement as a whole on TAW, only open support for individuals or organizations (or their logos) which oppose what we believe, violence, and anything else that opposes our beliefs. But this needs to be well defined because if we just ban "black lives matter" we ban discussion on a lot of things taking place in the civil rights movements now and that silences a lot of people. I believe the current rules of TAW cover the matter sufficiently without silencing anyone who feels a personal need to support a large-scale movement.
I also don't think it's fair to those who support civil rights for an Internet forum to declare something anti-Orthodox when, if I'm not wrong, no synod has condemned the movement. While individual clergy have certainly made strong opposition known, there has also been support. Can we let a poll decide what our heirarchs haven't? If we do, is that poll really reflecting our faith, or our political opinions.
Orthodox Christianity, Systemic Racism, and the Wrong Side of History - Affiliates - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
"we hear people object to any association with BLM because that would imply support for issues that are contrary to Church teaching. This fails to recognize the diversity of those who support BLM, and it projects the possibility of a pure politics that is impossible"

If we start banning things based on our own opinions, we create a left-Orthodox web and a right-Orthodox web. The heirarchs forbid support of abortion or same-sex marriage, but not BLM as a whole. Can't we do the same?

On a separate issue, I am also uncomfortable with Orthodox having these types of arguments, of which there have been many lately, out in front of everyone. I propose, if possible, having an Orthodox-only political sub-forum. The St. Justin's sub-forum was created as a place for non-Orthodox to come debate. I think we need a place for Orthodox to discuss political issues as, in our weakness, it can get heated and sometimes mean. I would fully support banning all political talk in the main TAW forum and giving it its own place.


Forgive me if you feel my argument or way or arguing is offensive. I intended not to come back because I'd get into this, but I browse sometimes and I hate the idea of banning a topic. I really think BLM is just a matter of perception and not faith. I left politics because it does this. I don't even vote.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I like the idea of the subform for political discussion.

 

[archer75]

This makes a lot of sense to me. I like the idea of the subform for political discussion.

The kind that's invisible to others, likenwith the men's and women's forums. That's what I would like.

 

[Dorothea]

The kind that's invisible to others, likenwith the men's and women's forums. That's what I would like.

I didn't know there were any invisible forums.

 

[gzt]

Frankly I think politics can be relegated to St Justin's as-is. Is there much political discussion in general here? I do believe that debating about it is off-topic for the main forum, as there it should be made clear that a wide range of opinions are possible for Orthodox Christians, it's not politically "liberal" or "conservative", that there are many ways a Christian can in good faith arrange their politics, rather than get distracted by political debate.

 

[archer75]

Frankly I think politics can be relegated to St Justin's as-is. Is there much political discussion in general here? I do believe that debating about it is off-topic for the main forum, as there it should be made clear that a wide range of opinions are possible for Orthodox Christians, it's not politically "liberal" or "conservative", that there are many ways a Christian can in good faith arrange their politics, rather than get distracted by political debate.

It's gonna get bad this year.