Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[Ken]

Took me a while but I pieced it together. That's a photo of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing?

Of course rough and tumble confirmation battles are not any kind of modern development either. Here is the example of George Washington's second nominee for Chief Justice, John Rutledge, who he nominated in 1795 to replace the first Chief Justice John Jay. By contrast, Kavanaugh got kid glove treatment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rutledge

By the time of his formal nomination to the Court on December 10, 1795, Rutledge's reputation was in tatters and support for his nomination had faded. Rumors of mental illness and alcohol abuse swirled around him, concocted largely by the Federalist press. His words and actions in response to the Jay Treaty were used as evidence of his continued mental decline. The Senate rejected his appointment on December 15, 1795, by a vote of 14–10. This was the first time that the Senate had rejected a Supreme Court nomination. To date, it is the only Supreme Court recess appointment not to be subsequently confirmed, and Rutledge remains the only Supreme Court justice unseated involuntarily by the Senate.

The Senate's rejection of his nomination left Rutledge mentally ruined. On December 26, 1795, he attempted suicide by jumping off a wharf into Charleston Harbor. He was rescued by two slaves who saw him drowning. Though the Senate remained in session through June 1, 1796, which would have been the automatic end of Rutledge's tenure following the rejection, Rutledge resigned from the Court two days later, on December 28, 1795, having served the briefest tenure of any Chief Justice of the United States (138 days).

[Josh]

USSC rulings used to generally represent “the end” to controversy. The court would rule, matters were generally accepted as closed.

Controversy over SCOTUS decisions and working to overturn them is about as old as the Court itself.

I agree. You can see a progression of Supreme Court cases on just about any important topic.

Do you think it would be best for the nation to accept SCOTUS decisions as the final word on the matter, accept it, and move on?

In general, I do think it would be good if the Supreme Court returned to a stronger belief in Stare Decisis.

So we need to accept slavery and abortion? Because that’s what Supreme Court precedent proclaims.

[JimFoxvog]

What do you see examples of modern hostility to SCOTUS rulings? I mean Roe v. Wade is the obvious one. There has been violent opposition to that ruling for the past 50 years. But what are some other examples of modern polarized hostility to SCOTUS rulings? I'm just curious what you are actually thinking about. What other recent SCOTUS rulings do you think are not being accepted by a polarized public?

Citizens United is not accepted by many. Here's a proposed Constitutional Amendment to overturn it before the current Congress.

H. J. RES. 1

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 4, 2021
Mr. Deutch (for himself, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Raskin, and Mr. Katko) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

“Article —
“ Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

“ Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

“ Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”.

[Robert]

Took me a while but I pieced it together. That's a photo of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing?

Of course rough and tumble confirmation battles are not any kind of modern development either. Here is the example of George Washington's second nominee for Chief Justice, John Rutledge, who he nominated in 1795 to replace the first Chief Justice John Jay. By contrast, Kavanaugh got kid glove treatment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rutledge

By the time of his formal nomination to the Court on December 10, 1795, Rutledge's reputation was in tatters and support for his nomination had faded. Rumors of mental illness and alcohol abuse swirled around him, concocted largely by the Federalist press. His words and actions in response to the Jay Treaty were used as evidence of his continued mental decline. The Senate rejected his appointment on December 15, 1795, by a vote of 14–10. This was the first time that the Senate had rejected a Supreme Court nomination. To date, it is the only Supreme Court recess appointment not to be subsequently confirmed, and Rutledge remains the only Supreme Court justice unseated involuntarily by the Senate.

The Senate's rejection of his nomination left Rutledge mentally ruined. On December 26, 1795, he attempted suicide by jumping off a wharf into Charleston Harbor. He was rescued by two slaves who saw him drowning. Though the Senate remained in session through June 1, 1796, which would have been the automatic end of Rutledge's tenure following the rejection, Rutledge resigned from the Court two days later, on December 28, 1795, having served the briefest tenure of any Chief Justice of the United States (138 days).

This is a case of politicians dueling it out, not the populace and their trust or distrust overall of the court system. I am one of those people. I used to trust the justice system int he US. I do not any longer. I see that it is not a fair and impartial system. Money and fame do talk. Rich people can buy their way out and the poor have little chance to get justice, but that is a discussion for another thread.

The SCOTUS has, at times, struggled with keeping the rights of the populace center front. It has corrected itself and it is, once again, bringing teeth back into the 1st Amendment. It is limiting government again. This is good, but it allowed it to happen and sat back until the crisis was over to act. This is historically the way the courts have worked. I think that is sad. Our 1st and other amendment rights DO NOT disappear in a crisis. They are ours, not the governments to give and take.

Our ability to speak and worship are not government given rights. They are given by God and guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. When the government restricts or takes them away, it is breaking the rules. It is not us who are breaking the rules when we exercise them, even when the government says we can not.

It is my right to speak and worship as I please. It is your right to speak about my speech and worship styles also. What should make Anabaptists stand out is the way we speak and worship.

[temporal1]

This is a case of politicians dueling it out, not the populace and their trust or distrust overall of the court system. ..

a personal memory:
Roe v Wade, 1973. i was early 20’s.
honestly, i was barely aware, maybe not aware, of the decision. i generally trusted the courts, and system of correction.
i do not believe i was unusual in any way. i was not a Christian by baptism or church membership, but i’m sure i was guided by Christian ethics, without much awareness. at the time, against RvW, i was not aware of organized political activists pounding on doors, preparing appeals (before rulings) et al.

living with the ruling, witnessing the evils that followed, AND, understanding major medical advances, including real time medical photography, convince me there is ample reason for a revisit of that 1973 ruling.

today, some states have enacted laws to circumvent the POSSIBILITY of a changed ruling!
this is not responding to a ruling. it’s formal, legal rejection before ruling.

formerly in the youthful U.S., the populace AND the elected, lawyers, media, held great respect for “rule of law,” “laws of the land.”
today, it’s morphed into, “respect laws our specific group wants,” as determined by monied organized political blocs+wealthy lobbies. organized bullies.

the populace is of minor concern.

[Ken]

Robert...

My point is not to say that there aren't modern social disputes and battles about things like SCOTUS nominations and SCOTUS decisions such as Roe v. Wade. Clearly there are.

My point is that this is nothing new at all. I don't believe we are at any less civil age than in generation's past. Far from it. In fact, I would argue that this sort of thing is exactly what defines the American Character going back to the very beginning. Alexis de Tocqueville commented at length on the irascible American character in his classic 1836 work "Democracy in America" and contrasted us to the meek and obedient Germans, for example.

The British discovered how difficult and ornery Americans could be in 1773 when the so-called "Sons of Liberty" dumped East India Tea Company cargo into Boston Harbor and set off the American revolution.

The Mexicans discovered how ornery and uncivil American could be at the Battle of the Alamo and during the Texas Revolution.

The whole world discovered it from 1861 to 1865 during the Civil War.

Every indigenous group discovered it when they encountered American settlers and traders in the west and across the globe. The vastly different experiences of westward expansion in the US and Canada are a case in point.

We took something of a hiatus from our own internal fights during the mid-20th Century when faced with existential foreign threats during WW2 and the Cold War. But once the Nazis, Japanese, and USSR faded into history as existential threats to our existence, we were soon back to our old fractious ways.

So when Americans protest Roe v. Wade. Or when they protest the ramming through of a SCOTUS nomination on a party-line vote rather than the 60-vote threshold that was used for all previous SCOTUS nominations prior to Trump. It is nothing new at all. In fact it is nothing more than a reaffirmation of our American character. And I would say exactly the same thing about the events of January 6th except that they went too far when they transitioned from legal 1st Amendment peaceful assembly to violent insurrection and violent attempts to stop or overthrow the process of democracy.

[Robert]

My point is that this is nothing new at all.

I never said there was not political conflict and drama in the US government and society. I said simply that people used to see the SCOTUS as far less partisan and more a tool for justice then political progress. Like all things, I am sure it ebbs and flows too.

Feel free to disagree.

[Ken]

My point is that this is nothing new at all.

I never said there was not political conflict and drama in the US government and society. I said simply that people used to see the SCOTUS as far less partisan and more a tool for justice then political progress. Like all things, I am sure it ebbs and flows too.

Feel free to disagree.

I will grant you that people today probably view SCOTUS as more blatantly partisan. That GOP-nominated justices will vote reliably GOP and that Dem-nominated justices will vote reliably Dem. The days when justices were less ideological are probably long gone. Justice Harry Blackmun, for example, wrote Roe v. Wade and was considered a liberal force on the court despite being nominated by Richard Nixon. That doesn't happen anymore for two reasons. First, judicial candidates are screened early on and rated for adherence to partisan doctrine by groups like the Federalist Society on the right, and the much less influential American Constitution Society on the left. And also more importantly, the Filibuster was abolished for SCOTUS appointments in 2016 meaning that presidents no longer need to seek nominees that will get bipartisan support.

That belief probably accelerated when the court voted to stop the Florida recount in 2000 in the Bush v. Gore case. Like you just said in the election investigations thread. What were they afraid would be found?

[temporal1]

BOOK REVIEW JULY 13, 2021 / “Religious Liberty Put to the Test”
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/reli ... -the-test/

.. The First Amendment restricted only the national government, but after America’s break from Great Britain, every state adopted constitutional provisions or passed laws to protect religious liberty. Protestant majorities were able to protect themselves through the democratic process, and it seemed now that religious minorities would be guaranteed religious freedom as a matter of law.

Unfortunately, some religious minorities continued to be discriminated against, harassed, and even persecuted by mobs and governments. Perhaps no minority illustrates this reality better than the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints (LDS), better known as the Mormon church.

.. Religious liberty is a foundational American principle, but Joseph Smith for President reminds us that religious minorities have not always been respected or even tolerated.

In the case of the LDS church, deviation from Christian orthodoxy combined with practices such as polygamy and the concentration of power in a charismatic leader led to inexcusable persecution.

The church’s repudiation of polygamy in 1890 paved the way for the toleration, and even acceptance, of the Latter Day Saints in the twentieth century. ..

.. Joseph Smith for President offers an excellent account of Smith’s dark-horse run for the presidency, and McBride does a wonderful job of putting Smith’s political activities in their broader context. This book should be read by anyone interested in Mormon history and/or antebellum politics.

And it is a must-read for anyone who thinks Washington’s 1790 letter to the Hebrew Synagogue reflects the lived experience of all religious minorities throughout American history.

This is principally about how the Mormon experience in the U.S. impacted minority religious groups.
i think there are relevant points to Robert’s OP. Polygamy was central to original LDS problems.

i think the quote about the U.S. being based on freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, is worthwhile. it’s reasonable, in context of the time, to believe the emphasis was presumed to be Christianity.

Freedom OF religion was not meant to auto-default to atheism, secularism, humanism, etc.

[temporal1]

OP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Ame ... nstitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What have been the general engagement or benefit we Anabaptists have received from the US Constitution's first amendment?

What has the historic Anabaptist position to the "separation of church and state?"

Do we exercise the freedom of speech and press?

What benefits does peaceful assembly have for us?

How has petitioning the government been done by Anabaptists?

Is the 1st amendment a good thing or bad thing for Anabaptists overall?

Well. This is about a Methodist miinister.
i’m not Methodist. From what i’ve read about Methodists / UMC, i was surprised this even occured.
It did.

i read a little about it, then found Rev Wally Carlson’s FB page. hmm. college graduates. well. whatever.
not sure which is worse, the abject intolerance, or filthy language? of college graduates.

today’s college grads are “all in” with the 1st Amendment, as long as all words align precisely with THEIR scripts.
No exception clause for God. (which, of course, means, they hate free speech.)

as i’ve said before, after spending a lifetime appreciating education and higher education, in recent years, i have REGRETS for every dime my family invested in gov ed, all levels, taxes, tuitions, donations, et al. it’s painful.

“Millikin University Institutional Review Board members are no longer part of the board” | Top Story
https://illinoisnewstoday.com/millikin- ... ry/443944/

Rev Wally Carlson / FB
https://www.facebook.com/carlson.walter

His short words? Not profound. His crime? (no judge or jury.) Just college-“educated” bullying/lynch mobs.

DECATUR, Ill. (WICS/WRSP) — Controversial comments made at Millikin's commencement this month have caused concern.

Revered Wally Carlson was giving the invocation speed when he pretended to get a phone call from God.

Millikin University officials confirm that Carlson said the following:

"First of all, let's take care of the gender issue.
He understands and he's sharing with you that there's no theological justification for it but he's choosing he and him today, doesn't like them and they and just because this is probably irritating enough people that it's coming out this way we're gonna stay away from she and her."

Millikin University officials say they are disappointed by Carlson's comments.

i’m not sure, but Rev Carlson MAY have also said something about dress? maybe.
this has caused such an instant local furor, it’s next to impossible to find anything - other than instant apologies from the “university.”

For anyone not paying attention, rest assured, these bullies take intolerance to the extreme. Evidently, colleges are now preparing graduates to make literal careers out of being low-class intolerant bullies.

i’m not won over by Methodists. his full invocation speech has not been made public.
this is a good example of how even selling out (as Methodists have) does not guarantee a place at the WOKE table.

the university is mortified a reverend would speak of God?? o.the horror. next time: VET.

what a shameless world this is.

- - - - - -

Nick Sandmann’s school+church were quick to denounce him, too.
That must have been rough on a 16-17 year old. But, that’s the 21st Century for ya.