On being liberal and our diversity (poll)

[ohio jones]

Blanket prohibitions, rooted in reputations of the 1950’s or older, blue collar unions. At least that is what I think. Unions have changed, we haven’t. Surprising, I know.

One example? My conservative Mennonite mother had a problem with moustaches because they were "military" when, in fact, military moustaches were actually a 19th Century fashion and were going out of style in the military by WW-I. http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2015/11 ... moustache/

For a previous discussion of unchanging rules and facial hair, I mustache you to refer to this thread:
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=641&start=30#p16524

[Swiss Bro]

The Apostolic Christian Church split over the mustache question in 1905.

For further facial hair discussion in the Apostolic Christian Church, see this thread:

http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1901

[steve-in-kville]

Started a sequel to the thread....

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2233

[Neto]

Can someone explain the conservative Mennonite issue with unions for me? This is honestly something I was unaware of. Perhaps because all the conservative Mennonites in my family on both sides are basically all in agriculture so the issue doesn't really come up.

I grew up MB (Mennonite Brethren), which no one in the 'Plain' Swiss Brethren background would consider 'conservative', but we DID have a statement about labor unions, so I'll respond from the MB perspective. First, the members of a labor union call one another 'brother', and a Christian should not call an unbeliever 'brother'. (This was true of the Electro-Platers' Union - the one I did not join, and so lost my job.) Secondly, the unions have secret meetings, which also forms an objection from the MB church, at least at the time I was still in that job. I don't recall if the congregational statement included this, but my personal conclusion/conviction was also informed by the tendency (at least at that time) for unions to use various forms of 'violence' against the employer, to obtain their demands. (Sometimes even physical violence, and sometimes just the 'violence' of blocking access to the plant, or refusal to work.) These tactics, especially physical violence against strike breakers or destruction of property, is certainly not in the spirit of non-resistance.

Interesting.

I've been a member of the Federal Employees Union at one time and more recently the Washington State teacher's union. I can't recall anyone ever calling anyone "brother" in either organization. That sounds more like a 1930s blue collar sort of thing. Nor do I recall any secret meetings ever. Union meetings, yes, but they weren't secret and they begged people to show up because attendance was generally pretty poor. I've been at a LOT LOT more "secret' meetings held by my employer than any union I've ever been involved with. I also taught in non-union Texas and frankly teachers in WA are treated better than teachers in TX. As for violence? Well, that's never been a thing in white collar unions. Most of the violent history of labor conflicts was from the 19th and early 20th centries before the passage of the Taft Hartley Act and as much or more violence in labor history was perpetrated by the employers and corporations.

Does the Mennonite prohibition on Unions also extend to working for any corporations or employers who have enganged in violence or facilitated violence? Could a Mennonite work for corporations like Coca Cola, Bayer, United Fruit, Dole, or ConAgra which have all been implicated in labor violence and even death squads in Central America? And is does the prohibition on unions only apply to unions that have actually engaged in violence? Or is it a blanket prohibition on all unions?

I don't have links to anything about this, but I remember that during the 70's there were some strikes which resulted in violence, mostly against strike breakers, and some vandalism. The union I was pressured to join was a 'blue-collar' union - I doubt if teachers would generally be as physically confrontational as industry workers. I did think through the issue for myself at that time, and remember seeing some information from the union that did specifically refer to members as 'brother'. I rather doubt if most MB congregations still have standards about this.

[ken_sylvania]

Blanket prohibitions, rooted in reputations of the 1950’s or older, blue collar unions. At least that is what I think. Unions have changed, we haven’t. Surprising, I know.

I would not want to join any of the blue collar unions that I have dealt with over the last few years. The violence is not all a thing of the past, and there is a ton of corruption still going on.

[Josh]

I’m sure folks like Ken will change their time now that unions are starting to support Trump, such as the Teamsters (one of the most notoriously violent unions).

[Sudsy]

The Apostolic Christian Church split over the mustache question in 1905.

For further facial hair discussion in the Apostolic Christian Church, see this thread:

http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1901

Good example. This is the kind of splitting I was referring to earlier. Seems like one thing that is dominant in Anabaptist culture and not being considered sinful is this church splitting.

[Ken]

I’m sure folks like Ken will change their time now that unions are starting to support Trump, such as the Teamsters (one of the most notoriously violent unions).

You mean change my tune?

I think freedom of association is a right enshrined in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution right there with freedom of religion. And I don't personally see any religious or ethical issues with partipating in labor unions in general. Or any reason for a blanket prohibition. Even though in specific instances some unions in some instances may be problematic, just like some in specific instances, some churches may be problematic.

Most of the union corruption I've heard about seems to be related to pension plans. I've never been in a union that had a separate union pension plan so none of them have had large amounts of money to handle or any avenue for corruption. That's also more of a blue collar thing I think.

[steve-in-kville]

I think freedom of association is a right enshrined in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution right there with freedom of religion. And I don't personally see any religious or ethical issues with partipating in labor unions in general. Or any reason for a blanket prohibition. Even though in specific instances some unions in some instances may be problematic, just like some in specific instances, some churches may be problematic.

It has perplexed me over the years at what some church groups deem acceptable occupations, and what is frowned upon or prohibited. Working night shift, OTR truck driving, paid EMT.... I could go on.

[Ken]

I think freedom of association is a right enshrined in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution right there with freedom of religion. And I don't personally see any religious or ethical issues with partipating in labor unions in general. Or any reason for a blanket prohibition. Even though in specific instances some unions in some instances may be problematic, just like some in specific instances, some churches may be problematic.

It has perplexed me over the years at what some church groups deem acceptable occupations, and what is frowned upon or prohibited. Working night shift, OTR truck driving, paid EMT.... I could go on.

I'm perfectly comfortable questioning certain professions that are exploitative, violent, or otherwise unsavory: Drug dealers (including pharma reps pushing opioids), porn actors and actresses and pornographers, pro wrestlers, tobacco merchants and manufacturers, arms merchants, etc. etc. But there are always grey areas and nuance. And to me these sorts of things fall under the category of personal responsibility rather than church business. I don't think, for example, that a single mother needs to quit her job at Wal-Mart because the corporation sells tobacco. Or that someone working in a Kraft Foods factory needed to quit their job when that company was acquired by Phillip Morris tobacco. Or that a UPS driver needs to quit his job because some of his deliveries his church may disapprove of.

I think these sorts of religious prohibitions are overly simplistic and a relic of a time centuries ago when professions and the economy was much different. And I think in this day and age it is probably more appropriate to for churches to perhaps guide people in choosing an ethical life (including but not limited to professions) rather than coming up with dated laundry lists of prohibitions.

All my dairy farmer relatives work on Sunday's for example. Yet no Mennonite church has ever questioned their choice of profession. A strict reading of the 10 commandments might lead one to conclude that dairy farming is inconsistent with the 3rd Commandment. Yet that never seems to be an issue ever, and I don't think a single Mennonite sect has ever questioned dairy farming ever.