MennoNet Politics Sabbatical

[Joy]

No. But we've learned that the subject is very corrosive to unity, especially when people constantly push it.

[temporal1]

No. But we've learned that the subject is very corrosive to unity, especially when people constantly push it.

i’m interested in the process of what unfolds in the 40 days. so often there are unexpected outcomes, sometimes very positive.

i’m hoping, when+if it returns, it may be a sub forum or opt-in category, to prevent future appearance of domination. i don’t know if this is possible or probable.

[ohio jones]

Is bringing politics back after 40 days necessary?

Note the wording of the announcement: "approx. 40 days" -- it may be in such an hour as ye think not. But of that day and hour knoweth no member, no, not even the moderators, but the janitor only.

If anyone wants to be blissfully unaware if and when Politics reappears, you may join the No Politics group (instructions here) at any time.

[Ken]

Question for the moderators or group here.

I assume the politics sabbatical refers to a sabbatical from CURRENT politics. All the red vs blue, Trump vs Biden partisan political stuff happening in this country that divides us.

I assume it doesn’t refer to absolutely anything touching on a subject that could be considered “political” in the broader sense. For example, I brought up the example of Martin Luther King and the 1950s civil rights movement in the discussion of protests and the religious religious justification for them (or lack thereof). And that was labeled as “political” because I was referencing MLK and not scripture.

What are the boundaries here?

[Robert]

I brought up the example of Martin Luther King and the 1950s civil rights movement in the discussion of protests and the religious religious justification for them (or lack thereof). And that was labeled as “political” because I was referencing MLK and not scripture.

Show me where that happened I bet we see a context past what you are explaining.

Why is it important to bring up historical political issues during this 40 day break? If it happened a long time ago, then waiting a few days to talk about should not be an issue, unless you are just trying to push the boundaries and make it hard for us to relax a bit for the next few weeks.

[Ken]

I brought up the example of Martin Luther King and the 1950s civil rights movement in the discussion of protests and the religious religious justification for them (or lack thereof). And that was labeled as “political” because I was referencing MLK and not scripture.

Show me where that happened I bet we see a context past what you are explaining.

Why is it important to bring up historical political issues during this 40 day break? If it happened a long time ago, then waiting a few days to talk about should not be an issue, unless you are just trying to push the boundaries and make it hard for us to relax a bit for the next few weeks.

Wade started a thread on protesting (which seems a political topic to begin with) viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3494 and made the claim that:

In regards to protesting I see it only as reactive. I see in the context of Jesus saying to not resist evil and to love our enemies as a call in our lives to be busy in proactively and actively loving others. Our motivation is rooted in the love of God. And motivation that involves reaction, which I believe protesting does(peaceful or not), is actually disobeying Christ as far as I understand Him because it is reactive.

I disagreed with the notion that protesting is "disobeying Christ" and cited the example of Martin Luther King who led what was by far the largest, longest, and most successful protest movement our history and that was justified by and steeped in theology.

I'm just trying to understand the boundaries here. Maybe Wade's entire thread is too political and should be off limits. But one can hardly have a discussion of the theological basis for protest and then say that the example of MLK is off limits. He probably wrote and spoke more about the theological basis for protest than any other American in history.

[Robert]

I disagreed with the notion that protesting is "disobeying Christ" and cited the example of Martin Luther King who led what was by far the largest, longest, and most successful protest movement our history and that was justified by and steeped in theology.

Well, you got an encouragement to discuss the theology of it. I agree with OJ's admonition. Instead of demanding your way, could you just accept that we want to take out as much political focus as possible? If this does not feel right to you, you are not forced to post or visit for the next 40 days. Not everyone feels that theology and politics are completely intertwined. Some want a break from the constant drone of politics. We decided to give that to those here. We felt it was the best for the majority here. If it does not work for you, you can discuss this stuff elsewhere. Go to facebook. Your viewpoint will be very welcomed by the rulers there.

Guidelines ... try really hard to separate politics from theology. If you make a mistake and it gets pointed out, own it, apologize, and go and sin no more. Okay, I am joking with the last part, but I think you get my meaning. It would be nice for you to do the first two. Learn from it and move forward.

Maybe Wade's entire thread is too political and should be off limits.

Maybe it is, but others seem able to do it. What is it in you that you can not separate the two? Why do you demand things to be done your way instead of what most of the community here want? It is like joining a group one likes, then demanding it change. If you did not like it when you joined, then why did you join? Most here accept or lean towards 2 kingdom theology. Things have always been and can continue to be discussed from that general ideology. You are welcome to disagree, but you will get disagreement and when you can not separate the two kingdoms during the next 40 days, you will be called out and admonished.

[Ken]

I disagreed with the notion that protesting is "disobeying Christ" and cited the example of Martin Luther King who led what was by far the largest, longest, and most successful protest movement our history and that was justified by and steeped in theology.

Well, you got an encouragement to discuss the theology of it. I agree with OJ's admonition. Instead of demanding your way, could you just accept that we want to take out as much political focus as possible? If this does not feel right to you, you are not forced to post or visit for the next 40 days. Not everyone feels that theology and politics are completely intertwined. Some want a break from the constant drone of politics. We decided to give that to those here. We felt it was the best for the majority here. If it does not work for you, you can discuss this stuff elsewhere. Go to facebook. Your viewpoint will be very welcomed by the rulers there.

Guidelines ... try really hard to separate politics from theology. If you make a mistake and it gets pointed out, own it, apologize, and go and sin no more. Okay, I am joking with the last part, but I think you get my meaning. It would be nice for you to do the first two. Learn from it and move forward.

Maybe Wade's entire thread is too political and should be off limits.

Maybe it is, but others seem able to do it. What is it in you that you can not separate the two? Why do you demand things to be done your way instead of what most of the community here want? It is like joining a group one likes, then demanding it change. If you did not like it when you joined, then why did you join? Most here accept or lean towards 2 kingdom theology. Things have always been and can continue to be discussed from that general ideology. You are welcome to disagree, but you will get disagreement and when you can not separate the two kingdoms during the next 40 days, you will be called out and admonished.

I wasn't demanding anything. Just asking for a clarification on what is meant by "politics"

[JimFoxvog]

These are the areas where we have more unity. And more in line with the reasons people at least claim to be here. Is bringing politics back after 40 days necessary?

We at least need to keep reminding each other to pray for peace in the political realm. When we can express different political opinions without saying "You fool!" we are demonstrating we can have peace in this realm.

[PetrChelcicky]

We need a forum for political ethics. All labels which are used for to persecute or stifle political opposition ("treason, spy, foreign agent, insurrection, domestic terrorism" etc.) have to be put under scrutiny.
This is not a question of party affiliation. It implies as well Ken's question wether protests may be stifled by the argument that they are "disobeying".
The precondition is that all our political standards tend to be "double standards". This is not an exception but - taking humans as they are - the rule. And only ethical reflexion and debate enables humans to overcome their double standards.