So let me apply what I mentioned in the last post. What is this article about? What are the most relevant facts?
This article mostly about one question - should a math teacher be fired over political and religious views that she lives out in her personal life but does not bring into the classroom?
And the thing that the article is mostly about is not really addressed in the article. It tells us that she's a horrible person, links her to Nazis, and is outraged that she thinks she should not have been fired, but doesn't even ask the constitutional question.
Here's how
Koontz explains the constitutional question:
I first became concerned with the situation in Israel and Palestine when I visited the region in the early 2000s, while serving a three-year term with the Mennonite Central Committee in Egypt. That interest intensified last fall, when our church hosted a weekly presentation series led by a member of our congregation. He told us about his trip to Israel and Palestine at the invitation of a group of Palestinian Christians. And he showed us video presentations by nongovernmental organizations, children's rights advocates, and former Israeli soldiers about the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians.
At the end of eight sessions, we talked about how boycotts, divestments, and sanctions could help bring about an end to the Israeli government’s occupation, in the same way those tactics helped dismantle apartheid in South Africa. I left the meeting with the conviction that I needed to do my part to support the Palestinian struggle for equality, even if it just meant not buying Sabra hummus or a SodaStream machine.
I am challenging this law because I believe that the First Amendment protects my right, and the right of all Americans, to make consumer spending decisions based on their political beliefs. You don’t need to share my beliefs or agree with my decisions to understand that this law violates my free speech rights. The state should not be telling people what causes they can or can’t support.
I am also sad that I cannot be a math trainer for the state of Kansas because of my political views about human rights across the globe. The two seem so distant and unrelated. My activism on behalf of freedom for all Israelis and Palestinians shouldn’t affect my ability to train math teachers. I hope this law will be recognized as a constitutional violation.
Here's how
the lawsuit explains the constitutional question:
HB 2409 violates the Constitution. As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., political boycotts are fully protected by the First Amendment rights to free expression and free association. By compelling state contractors to certify that they are not engaged in boycotts of Israel, HB 2409 imposes an ideological litmus test intended to penalize people who participate in boycott campaigns to protest the Israeli government. By the same token, the Act restricts all state contractors’ protected expression without any apparent justification other than impermissible viewpoint discrimination.
State contractors are free to engage in a wide variety of expression, including by participating in boycotts on all sorts of issues, but contractors who wish to boycott Israel are marked with a scarlet letter. In sum, the Act violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause by leveraging state contracts to prevent individuals and companies from fully participating on one side of the public debate regarding Israel and Palestine.
I'm not convinced that this kind of boycott makes much of a difference, and I suspect MC-USA has more important things to do than issue press releases, but I'm very concerned if the first amendment rights of Christians are endangered. The first amendment protects both political expression and religious expression.
haithabu wrote:I posted the article not because I endorse it (I think I made that clear) because it is always of interest to me what others say about Mennonites.
I don't think this represents what most people are saying about Mennonites. It's a pretty extreme view. I have literally never heard anyone describe Mennonites like this:
No one speaks for the Mennonites. They answer to no one but their God and their conscience. But in the highly-fragmented world of Anabaptist Mennonite thought, there are several sects and branches which have darkly drifted far away from the teachings and have embraced hate, fascism, terrorism, and politics.
I don't know what we learn from the fact that Frontpage Magazine does describe us that way. Except what we learn about Frontpage Magazine. And I find it a little alarming when someone says that while also telling us that a Mennonite should be fired because of her views.
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?