Lancaster Online: web usage among Amish & Mennonites

[mike]

My memory of the announcement is that the vote was close (within a few percentage points?), but I don't have any record of that. That the final decision overrode the agreed upon procedure makes me uncomfortable. Do you remember what the difference was between the required percentage and the actual?

Sorry, I do not have the exact number in front of me. The required percentage was 75% from the laity. The bishops carried the remaining 25%. Checking with some others, the general consensus was the laity vote was in the low nineties, but I do not have proof. The bishop's original vote was also majority against the internet, but again, I do not have that number, only record that "the church wide vote concerning the internet was negative and we will be working to align our practice with this vote".

Now I'm confused... that was the vote against Internet... and yet it started to be used anyway?

In my conference, a change in policy requires a 75% approval vote by the ministry, followed by a 75% approval vote by all conference members. Eastern operates similarly, and as I understand it, the vote carried by the ministry (or the bishops, not sure), but was then voted down by the members at large. Normally this would mean a policy change does not carry. But the bishops overrode the vote of the membership and decided to allow the Internet anyway. It was a power move, because they could.

My assumption is that this happened at least in part because the Eastern bishops/ministry had invested a lot of time and support over a number of years for developing an Internet filtering solution that would enable their membership to use it according to their guidelines. (Compass Foundation, I believe.) They weren't about to have the membership undo all that work and negate the whole thing.

Those of you from Eastern can correct me where I'm wrong here.

[Josh]

I'd love to get a straight answer of who exactly runs Compass Foundation, who their contractors are (i.e. who is getting paid), who funded them, and so forth. So far answers have not been particularly forthcoming.

[mike]

I'd love to get a straight answer of who exactly runs Compass Foundation, who their contractors are (i.e. who is getting paid), who funded them, and so forth. So far answers have not been particularly forthcoming.

It's a for-profit business that might once have been one person's brainchild, but is now owned by a group of businessmen. I know one of them. They are profitable enough to have a couple of dozen paid employees, many or most of whom work remotely. In addition to web filtering, they do other IT-related work and sell cellular phones including managed smartphones and dumbphones for people who want no Internet access on their phones.

[eccentric_rambler]

My memory of the announcement is that the vote was close (within a few percentage points?), but I don't have any record of that. That the final decision overrode the agreed upon procedure makes me uncomfortable. Do you remember what the difference was between the required percentage and the actual?

Sorry, I do not have the exact number in front of me. The required percentage was 75% from the laity. The bishops carried the remaining 25%. Checking with some others, the general consensus was the laity vote was in the low nineties, but I do not have proof. The bishop's original vote was also majority against the internet, but again, I do not have that number, only record that "the church wide vote concerning the internet was negative and we will be working to align our practice with this vote".

Now I'm confused... that was the vote against Internet... and yet it started to be used anyway?

To the best of my memory and understanding -

Certain businesses expressed a need for web access to remain competitive.

A pilot program was developed, creating the Redwood filter engine that Compass Foundation now uses.

Certain businesses were invited to trial the system, eventually others who requested the system were also granted the privilege. Two stipulations were made. One, web access was to be used "only for business purposes" and two, that since this was a test program approved by the bishops but technically in violation of the discipline that it might be later done away with.

To change the discipline an 80% majority is required, with half the vote going to the ordained and the other half to the membership. This is spelled out in the discipline.

Here is where my murky memory and Verity's info may diverge, I'm not sure. I don't remember whether the bishop vote he mentions was the bishops or the ministry.

The following is from memory. It is not written down and may be incorrect, but I intend to relay the facts to the best of my ability. I do remember hearing that one prior vote, whether just the bishops or the vote of all ordained, was not in favor of continuing the program and updating the discipline to reflect it. Some discussion was had/pressure was applied and the vote was taken again and carried. Next the non-ordained members eighteen and older voted, with the result being the motion was rejected. I believe the margin was slim, not more than several percent below what was required to change. Rumor also had it that only one district voted against. Because the vote was so close to passing the bishops decided to override the vote and pass it anyway. As you can imagine, this caused even more unrest and eventually resulted in the formation of Appalachian. Appalachian was in some cases more a reaction to perceived unfaithfulness by the bishops than it was a reaction against internet.

[Josh]

I'd love to get a straight answer of who exactly runs Compass Foundation, who their contractors are (i.e. who is getting paid), who funded them, and so forth. So far answers have not been particularly forthcoming.

It's a for-profit business that might once have been one person's brainchild, but is now owned by a group of businessmen. I know one of them. They are profitable enough to have a couple of dozen paid employees, many or most of whom work remotely. In addition to web filtering, they do other IT-related work and sell cellular phones including managed smartphones and dumbphones for people who want no Internet access on their phones.

It's a bit sneaky, then, for a for-profit business to be called a "foundation". And it's even sneakier if a group of bishops push something through that stimulates demand for the goods and services of a business they invested in and founded...

My own denomination tries to run a filtering etc. service, but it is established as a formal nonprofit. And it is not mandatory for church members to use it. They can use any filtering product on the market they want. I personally just use Apple's built in one.

[Josh]

Certain businesses were invited to trial the system, eventually others who requested the system were also granted the privilege. Two stipulations were made. One, web access was to be used "only for business purposes" and two, that since this was a test program approved by the bishops but technically in violation of the discipline that it might be later done away with.

I try to imagine if this was done with some other aspect of Eastern discipline. Let's say, for example, that they decide to trial men wearing regular lapel suits, T-shirts, and women wearing skirts 'n' shirts and hanging veils, but just as a "test program". Only those in certain businesses are invited to trial this, and the wearing of such attire is for "business purposes only". Since it's approved by the bishops but technically in violation of the discipline, it might later be done with.

Meanwhile the rest of the membership has to keep on wearing plain suits, cape dresses, and kapps.

Appalachian was in some cases more a reaction to perceived unfaithfulness by the bishops than it was a reaction against internet.

That makes quite a bit of sense as well and reflected what I heard from other sources.

[eccentric_rambler]

Certain businesses were invited to trial the system, eventually others who requested the system were also granted the privilege. Two stipulations were made. One, web access was to be used "only for business purposes" and two, that since this was a test program approved by the bishops but technically in violation of the discipline that it might be later done away with.

I try to imagine if this was done with some other aspect of Eastern discipline. Let's say, for example, that they decide to trial men wearing regular lapel suits, T-shirts, and women wearing skirts 'n' shirts and hanging veils, but just as a "test program". Only those in certain businesses are invited to trial this, and the wearing of such attire is for "business purposes only". Since it's approved by the bishops but technically in violation of the discipline, it might later be done with.

Meanwhile the rest of the membership has to keep on wearing plain suits, cape dresses, and kapps.

Appalachian was in some cases more a reaction to perceived unfaithfulness by the bishops than it was a reaction against internet.

That makes quite a bit of sense as well and reflected what I heard from other sources.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Perhaps sometime I'll write up the issues I see with the business only position. I don't have time right now.

[mike]

I'd love to get a straight answer of who exactly runs Compass Foundation, who their contractors are (i.e. who is getting paid), who funded them, and so forth. So far answers have not been particularly forthcoming.

It's a for-profit business that might once have been one person's brainchild, but is now owned by a group of businessmen. I know one of them. They are profitable enough to have a couple of dozen paid employees, many or most of whom work remotely. In addition to web filtering, they do other IT-related work and sell cellular phones including managed smartphones and dumbphones for people who want no Internet access on their phones.

It's a bit sneaky, then, for a for-profit business to be called a "foundation". And it's even sneakier if a group of bishops push something through that stimulates demand for the goods and services of a business they invested in and founded...

My own denomination tries to run a filtering etc. service, but it is established as a formal nonprofit. And it is not mandatory for church members to use it. They can use any filtering product on the market they want. I personally just use Apple's built in one.

I use Compass. I don't know about the "foundation" name being sneaky so much as a little odd maybe. I've heard the name of the founder but I long forgot it. I don't know whether he was an Eastern bishop, but most likely he was just a tech savvy Mennonite guy who had some money, expertise, and time, and people knew of his work and encouraged him to develop a solution for Internet filtering that would satisfy conservative Mennonites. There's a big demand in that community for what Compass is selling, so it's fine with me if they made a business of it.

[steve-in-kville]

I use Compass. I don't know about the "foundation" name being sneaky so much as a little odd maybe. I've heard the name of the founder but I long forgot it. I don't know whether he was an Eastern bishop, but most likely he was just a tech savvy Mennonite guy who had some money, expertise, and time, and people knew of his work and encouraged him to develop a solution for Internet filtering that would satisfy conservative Mennonites. There's a big demand in that community for what Compass is selling, so it's fine with me if they made a business of it.

I may know who started it. If he is the same guy that owns Rosewood, I would've gone to church with him for a brief time.

[cooper]

It's a bit sneaky, then, for a for-profit business to be called a "foundation". And it's even sneakier if a group of bishops push something through that stimulates demand for the goods and services of a business they invested in and founded...

My own denomination tries to run a filtering etc. service, but it is established as a formal nonprofit. And it is not mandatory for church members to use it. They can use any filtering product on the market they want. I personally just use Apple's built in one.

My speculation about why it is a business is that businesses are allowed more independence than nonprofits in ultra-conservative circles. If you have a nonprofit it is expected to be under firm church control. Businesses are granted much more leeway. The founders of Compass Foundation are from Wash-Franklin, Eastern, and Weaverland so it could not be coopted by one church group. There is occasionally tension between Compass Foundation and leadership of their various constituencies.

Compass has a good product and their rates are very reasonable for the relatively niche market they have. I would be surprised if it is a lucrative business although with time it could be. Constant changes in technology require a lot of research and development spending. They also need to do manual reviewing of websites. There are a lot of people who are not required to use Compass who do which I think speaks to quality of their product.