The STOC under Bishop Akakije - Where are they going?

[Maria]

For myself, I am not so sure that marching in demonstrations is really the Orthodox Christian approach. I wouldn't do it.

I agree.

[Matthew]

I was hesitant to write it...surprised to see anyone would agree!

[Barbara]

I would not myself. I am not that type of person who likes to create a spectacle. Or even be seen at all in public !

However, as one precedent, Archbishop Anthony [Medvedev] of San Francisco led a group of his clergymen to
protest for something to do with Serbia. Some kind of 'solidarity' - perhaps in reaction to the NATO bombing of Serbia. This procession was in downtown San Francisco, I vaguely recall. Maybe around the year 2000 or late 1990s.

Well, perhaps STOC figured they were speaking out in a way that could be captured on youtube video and immortalized, thus educating their countrymen and other Europeans, which is of course a worthy motivation.

I admire them for organizing it, coming forward with superb arguments and articulating them. Perhaps new members of the flock were pulled in this way.

I still think that the women hould have had heads covered nicely and everyone worn Church clothes rather than casual, which just looks bad on anyone. Makes a poor impression.

[Matthew]

Yes, Barbara, I think they did try to do a good thing by their march. Personally, I think writing truthful letters of concern in a respectful manner is the best form of protest.

[Barbara]

Good point indeed, Matthew.
Where a letter of concern in the US or Canada causes a few ripples, in Eastern countries, such a letter is paid
much more heed. Thus Serbia, a pivotal former Eastern bloc nation, would be set up this way. It's a certain bureaucracy to read and file letters and reply to them> but maybe this is one of the few good inheritances from Communism and semi-Communism [ former Yugoslavia ].

Nonetheless, a letter makes an impact anywhere in the world.
We should all remember this, because taking the time to write an office will make a definite impression. Especially if there are many letters flooding that office protesting whatever the situation was.

In the past century or so, even monarchies paid heed to letter-writing campaigns.

[Matthew]

Good point indeed, Matthew.
Where a letter of concern in the US or Canada causes a few ripples, in Eastern countries, such a letter is paid much more heed. ... a letter makes an impact anywhere in the world. We should all remember this, because taking the time to write an office will make a definite impression. Especially if there are many letters flooding that office protesting whatever the situation was.

Yes, I am told that this is mainly because they are aware that for every person who bothers to make the effort to write them a letter, there are statistically (I forget the exact number, but perhaps it was about 10 or more) many more who do not write but feel the same way and will not make their presence and opinion known until election time. Also, foreign governments (writing their embassies and consulates) are very sensitive about how other nations feel about them or perceive them. So it can stop abuses, tortures, executions of political and religious prisoners and so forth or at least reduce the harshness of their treatment or length of their sentences.

[Barbara]

Yes, though I think Amnesty International has been more the conduit for such human rights complaints.

What you said about foreign governments being sensitive to their image in the West brought to mind an anecdote from a traveler's tale. An American woman was traveling by train in India. This is a very safe way to travel normally, by the way.
She had her camera and bag stolen with all her money in it when someone at a train stop reached his arm in the window and grabbed them. She was furious to be without any money whatsoever and sought relief from local Indian Railways officials, climbing the ladder to higher ranks. None would or could offer assistance. She met with stony refusals for compensation for her losses.

Frustrated, she took a wild chance and wrote a letter to Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India at that time.
With the heavy wheels of bureaucracy in India, the chances that Indira Gandhi would even see the letter, let alone act on it, were small.

Lo and behold, a year or two after she returned to her home state, she received a check for $ 400 or some large amount by Indian standards. Accompanied by a generalized apology from the Prime Minister's office or underlings.

So sometimes it is worth a try when dealing with even the most anti-American nations. At that time, India was head of the NAM, non-aligned movement, sponsored by the Soviets covertly. Speak to nearly any Indian and you would hear railing against America and praise of Soviet Russia. That's how millions of Indians were indoctrinated.

So it was even more surpising that this U.S. traveler received such deferential treatment from the very top.
I guess Indira sought to uphold the balance of power implied by the NAM.
That philosophy was "Neither submit to East nor West, but remain independent. Actively play off both blocs against each other. Don't let one think they have your country in their pocket. Sometimes snub one and smile at the other, and vice versa just for good measure."