Poll of TAW for rule

[FenderTL5]

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

No.
It excludes the word "requirement," it's that word where my dissent lies.

I think the BLM statement is intended as a politically correct, all-inclusive, anything goes approach to family structure, and all inclusive means including the nuclear family. Nuclear family is not a requirement for them but it does not necessarily mean they are activrly trying to destroy nuclear families, particulary those within the black community. I don't see any way that the traditional black churches could support the movement the way they do if that were true.
IMHO, ymmv

 

[gzt]

I just think this whole rule thing is hopelessly confused - for instance, from the very first reply, would this image be allowed?

 

[gzt]

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.

This statement is empirically true and in no way contradicts Orthodox doctrine - not everybody in the world is heterosexual.

 

[Phronema]

This statement is empirically true and in no way contradicts Orthodox doctrine - not everybody in the world is heterosexual.

Be that as it may it means that they are queer-affirming by their own words which means they aren't calling the act itself sinful. Which it is along with pre-marital heterosexual sex, or self-abuse, or lusting after someone, and so on. I'm not saying everyone doesn't deserve love, and support regardless of their sins, but I can't get behind that. And for that matter I wouldn't try to normalize any sin.

 

[Platina]

The full quote is: "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)."

Yes, the default position is that someone is heterosexual because we know how God created and intends man to be and that it is only the result of the Fall that has led some people down a path of brokenness manifested as homosexuality.

They are not simply denying that everyone is hetero (cause, duh), but that hetero is the norm.

 

[FenderTL5]

NOTE, I quoted the wrong post - I have edited the language to correct my error

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

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?

 

[Phronema]

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?

No, and on its own merit I have no problem with a lack of a requirement of the nuclear prescribed family especially in the case of a single parent family. It's when it's realized in the context of the organization itself having been founded by two self-proclaimed trained Marxists that I have an issue with it at all.

That said that's a political qualm, and not a religious one for me.

 

[FenderTL5]

No, and on its own merit I have no problem with a lack of a requirement of the nuclear prescribed family especially in the case of a single parent family. It's when it's realized in the context of the organization itself having been founded by two self-proclaimed trained Marxists that I have an issue with it at all.

That said that's a political qualm, and not a religious one for me.

This is why I'm adamant that the language be correct or be struck.

 

[walking.away.123]

Edited for pride.

 

[ArmyMatt]

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

I get that, the edit, if I am reading it right, is just to the first part of the statement, which is why I would be fine with that specific edit.

 

[Phronema]

This is why I'm adamant that the language be correct or be struck.

I'm tracking now I think. I was under the impression that you, and Father Matt intended to have the portion struck that dealt with the LGBT portion altogther, but maybe I misunderstood.

You're saying it should say "The organization Black Lives Matter does not promote a nuclear family requirement.." in addition to the portion regarding the LGBT portion?

 

[FenderTL5]

I get that, the edit, if I am reading it right, is just to the first part of the statement, which is why I would be fine with that specific edit.

Agreed.
I have no issue with the second part. It matches our teaching and what is stated on the BLM site.

 

[Phronema]

I get that, the edit, if I am reading it right, is just to the first part of the statement, which is why I would be fine with that specific edit.

I understand. I do apologize as I misunderstood that portion.

That said I have no problem with that edit then either.

 

[Davidnic]

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.

 

[gzt]

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!

 

[gzt]

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.

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.

 

[Platina]

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.

I'll repost what my black Orthodox friend has to say about it:

Here are my formal thoughts on why I refuse to say "Black Lives Matter" and say "Black Life Matters" (shout out to KI for coining this term)

I completely agree with the Black Lives Matter phrase as a sentiment, but not the organization. They are a feminist and LGBTQ organization that is fostering their agenda using police on black violence.

I'm not saying there is anything inherently wrong with the feminist and LGBTQ movement, but when you start using violence on black people as a cover, and use black males on the front line of your army to fight your agenda, then this becomes problematic. You're no different from the slave owner deep in the heart of dixieland.

Furthermore, and I'll quote verbatim from their official website (attached in the link).

"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."

Note very clearly that the word fathers is eliminated. You can argue that the word fathers is embedded in the word parents, but so is the word mothers. This was an intentional omission. After all, what better way to experiment on a new form of child-raising than to exploit the demographic that has been ravaged with single-motherhood for decades. They have implicitly admitted that biological fathers have no role in child rearing.

This is a Tuskegee-style experiment.

To reiterate, I don't have a problem with people saying Black Lives Matter (except if they are official members of the organization). But personally, I'll never say it. The phrase has been irreconcilably co-opted to this organization.

Same thing goes for the "All lives Matter" phrase. This is just a republican political tribe reaction to the black lives matter movement.

To coin personal phrases, I propose the following: Instead of saying #blacklivesmatter, say #blacklifematters. Instead of saying #allLivesmatter, say #allhumanbloodmatters. After all we are all distant relatives.

 

[archer75]

I think @ShiFuBill has a nice idea, a place where we can hash these things out "in private."

 

[Phronema]

The Black Lives Matter movement should be distinguished from established groups or organizations within it.
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"

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 the statements made by individuals or organizations (or their logos) which oppose what we believe. 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.
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.

To me your post wasn't offensive at all, and I think it was a solid post overall. The issue to me is that you start by talking about the official organization itself, and then move on to the entirety of the movement, and that they are in essence different. On some level I know this to be true because not everyone who uses a #blacklivesmatter hashtag on Twitter is wholly supportive of the additions that were made to the official organization over time.

The problem then is how does one make the distinction between when an individual is supportive of the official organization, or the rest of the movement while on this forum? I don't believe that a slightly nuanced difference in logos would make much of a difference to the average inquirer, or seeker who is passing by?

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.

 

[Phronema]

I think @ShiFuBill has a nice idea, a place where we can hash these things out "in private."

I think it's an absolutely outstanding idea.