Poll of TAW for rule

[gzt]

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.

 

[Hermit76]

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.

1. "False" -Orthodox Dwight Shrute
2. Yes it is.

 

[prodromos]

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.

They reject the father being head of the family. BLM use of "nuclear family" is deceptive.
Opposition to sinful behavior which leads to the destruction of the soul is Orthodox doctrine.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Choose another slogan and keep fighting injustice, if you think you really can. I

Moses the Black matters.

 

[FenderTL5]

They reject the father being head of the family.

Says who? Their About Us statement does not say that. It says they reject it as a "requirement."
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.
It would seem to me they are merely acknowledging the real social problem the black community has with absentee fathers, with the community being willing to pick up the slack.
Not requiring something is not necessarily the same as opposition or calling for its destruction.

 

[gzt]

They reject the father being head of the family. BLM use of "nuclear family" is deceptive.
Opposition to sinful behavior which leads to the destruction of the soul is Orthodox doctrine.

1. Show me, this seems to be an irrelevant digression.
2. This fails to contradict my statement.

 

[prodromos]

Says who?

Says them, not on their website but in talks and interviews the groups founders have given.

 

[FenderTL5]

Says them, not on their website but in talks and interviews the groups founders have given.

Up until this point, the proposed rule change is being based on the language in their About Us.
If your comment is true, lets see it brought in for review.

If I'm to be persuaded of the need for a change in rules, then the rule needs to be validated and it's purpose defined. So far, the person or persons requesting the change is secret and the reason it's seemingly needed is also being kept secret. Why the secrecy?
I sense something unseemly taking place.

 

[gzt]

I want to make it clear that my engagement with these points is in no way conceding that the blacklivesmatter.com page is at all important for the Black Lives Matter movement, it's just one organization among several. But as we follow this rabbit trail we are getting further and further from something that seems relevant at all to "supporting Black Lives Matter" on a message board. It's such a trek to get to whatever sinister point about family structure (which has not been clearly elucidated here) is being esoterically supported. This is the sort of thing I meant when I said initially that the rule is vague and incorrect.

 

[Lukaris]

The whole BLM scam & demopravda media are a sin. The police are not monolithic and the problems of the Minneapolis PD (in a Democrat City & state) were actually multicultural. In the last couple years an Hispanic cop controversy shot a black man, a Somali American cop shot a white woman. These are sever local problems. BLM has little to say about that or Boko Harum or this ( etc.):
Grieving Families Of Killed Children Call On 'Black Lives Matter' To Address Community Violence

 

[prodromos]

1. Show me, this seems to be an irrelevant digression.

That would take time I do not have. I have watched hundreds of videos over the years and have not saved links to the relevant interviews.

2. This fails to contradict my statement.

Your statement is irrelevant. Orthodox doctrine is not about "rights", only "responsibilities"..

 

[gzt]

1. But this is kind of the point: if you have to dig, I don't think it's really part of the organization's main thrust, not that the organization matters much to the national Black Lives Matter movement.
2. Yes, that is one reason it doesn't say much about whether we can or cannot support legal rights for LGBTQ people. So there doesn't seem to be a problem here?

 

[Davidnic]

Up until this point, the proposed rule change is being based on the language in their About Us.
If your comment is true, lets see it brought in for review.

If I'm to be persuaded of the need for a change in rules, then the rule needs to be validated and it's purpose defined. So far, the person or persons requesting the change is secret and the reason it's seemingly needed is also being kept secret. Why the secrecy?
I sense something unseemly taking place.

It's not being kept secret. I'm spending time with my family not answering every question on an hourly basis.

TAW is not the only area where this will be proposed. It's just the first because I started here and I'm not going to maintain multiple similar threads at once. OBOB will also have this question when this thread is done. Possibly others as well.

There have been requests off and on that we look at groups with views that would not mesh with congregational areas beliefs or board wide beliefs. This was one of them. And given current events it was a place to start. We choose to look at things from time to time. This is not aimed at one area or one poster.

The purpose is that the congregational areas have always had the ability to limit the discussion of things against their statement of faith. So you are being asked if you want this. We did polls like this for allowing the discussion of gay marriage, and other topics over the years. This happens about every three to five years.

The reason it is needed, or may be needed (remember we are asking not imposing), is the topic has come up in varied forms in reports, comments, support questions. It is not one area and one person.

The fact that there is a point/counterpoint discussion happening shows there is merit to the consideration.

 

[gzt]

A point/counterpoint shows that banning would be controversial.

 

[prodromos]

I want to make it clear that my engagement with these points is in no way conceding that the blacklivesmatter.com page is at all important for the Black Lives Matter movement, it's just one organization among several.

What are some of the other organizations?

 

[FenderTL5]

It's not being kept secret. I'm spending time with my family not answering every question on an hourly basis.

TAW not the only area where this will be proposed. It's just the first because I started here and I'm not going to maintain multiple similar threads at once. OBOB will also have this question when this thread is done. Possibly others as well.

There have been requests off and on that we look at groups with views that would not mesh with congregational areas beliefs or board wide beliefs. This was one of them. And given current events it was a place to start. We choose to look at things from time to time. This is not aimed at one area or one poster.

The purpose is that the congregational areas have always had the ability to limit the discussion of things against their statement of faith. So you are being asked if you want this. We did polls like this for allowing the discussion of gay marriage, and other topics over the years. This happens about every three to five years.

The reason it is needed, or may be needed (remember we are asking not imposing), is the topic has come up in varied forms in reports, comments, support questions. It is not one area and one person.

The fact that there is a point/counterpoint discussion happening shows there is merit to the consideration.

Thank you.
That clears up quite a bit.
My impression was that it was only this forum and was being directed specifically at one or two individuals.
I'm glad to learn that I was wrong.

 

[Davidnic]

A point/counterpoint shows that banning would be controversial.

I'm not here to argue for or against in your congregational home. But banning discussion promotion of gay marriage as equal to marriage between a man and a woman was controversial.

Everyone continue your conversation and voting. I will answer questions that pertain to the rule itself or why it is being proposed like I did above.

I will answer any request for edits.

But it's not my place to tell my Orthodox brothers and sisters what they believe. That is why we are asking with the poll.

 

[gzt]

What are some of the other organizations?

The dozens of local organizations that may or may not be affiliated with that national organization as a chapter, various other national organizations such as some of the ones listed, eg, here 10 Black Lives Matter Organizations You Can Donate Money To Right Now (not an endorsement of any listed organization)

 

[Hermit76]

Says who? Their About Us statement does not say that. It says they reject it as a "requirement."
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.
It would seem to me they are merely acknowledging the real social problem the black community has with absentee fathers, with the community being willing to pick up the slack.
Not requiring something is not necessarily the same as opposition or calling for its destruction.

This is Marxist ideology. We do not believe in "the village" raising a child.
BTW, this statement has changed to slow the opposition to the statement. As someone who has spent time with and around Democratic Socialists, I read this as they intend it. It is not about the absent father but rather in regards to ensuring groupthink within children.

 

[Hermit76]

The dozens of local organizations that may or may not be affiliated with that national organization as a chapter, various other national organizations such as some of the ones listed, eg, here 10 Black Lives Matter Organizations You Can Donate Money To Right Now (not an endorsement of any listed organization)

Ummm... How is this list NOT connected to the BLM organization?

To ensure that you're choosing a reputable organization to donate to, Patrisse Cullors, Political Strategist, Co-Founder of Black Lives Matter and Founder of Reform LA Jails, provided a list she recommends to support and follow that are working to end systematic racism.

Here are t o of the interesting suggestions.

Started in 2017, "Black Visions Collective is a Black-led, Queer and Trans centering organization whose mission is to organize powerful, connected Black communities and dismantle systems of violence," its organizational one-paper states. This is done through establishing strategic campaigns, investing in Black leadership, as well as engaging in cultural and narrative organization.

The Okra Project is a collective that seeks to address the global crisis faced by Black Trans people by bringing home cooked, healthy, and culturally specific meals and resources to Black Trans People wherever we can reach them," its website explains. The project runs off of donations to pay Black Trans chefs to cook for Black Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming (TGNC) people, at no charge for them.

Most of the rest are political activist groups that support the BLM Orginizational goals. This honestly does not support your argument but reinforces our observations.