Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[Heirbyadoption]

I see the situation with LGBT students in a classroom exactly the same way. It is not the role or right of teachers to question, denigrate, or deny their identity no matter how much the teacher might disapprove or believe their identity conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Robert illustrates some of what I'm perhaps confusingly trying to express, as he shares the above quote from you, Ken. It might be inversely said that it is the role of Christians (even if they work as teachers under the state) to engage biological and identity issues with honesty and integrity, just as they would any other issue, regardless of the consequences.

Further, conjunctively, addressing a child by a preferred nickname is one thing; addressing a child (or an adult) by an identity that distinctly endorses their preference to be identified as a different gender than that which God has given them, is another animal altogether.

The whole point of the discussion is that it isn't the role of the teacher to make that judgement. That is for the parents and student to decide. We are talking about public schools, not private religious schools.

And if you think this sort of thing is a trivial or consequence-free act on the part of the teacher then you are naïve about how classrooms operate. Students follow the lead of their teacher and this sort of denial or disrespect on the part of the teacher provides a flashing green light to classroom bullies who are going to take it a lot lot further in a lot of creatively cruel ways. Parents don't send their children to school to be bullied, harassed, and disrespected. And will not stand for it if teachers encourage it through their conduct. Nor should they.

I'm actually pretty familiar with public school classrooms... And yes, I understand your point. I'm simply saying that a Christian's faith must inherently come first in issues of integrity, whether it be in a public school setting or elsewhere; and in truth, neutrality is taken as endorsement, so it is a misnomer. From my limited perspective, you were correct that Christian teachers who cannot conscientiously endorse (whether silently or openly) the situation in question probably would do well to find another venue, or it will ultimately be found for them. And I share your concern for the harmful effects that bullying can have upon children, though Temporal1 raises a valid point that integrity in the area of gender identity is indeed a fading virtue (courtesy of the adults) and what she calls "lib ideology", and any disagreement with the evolving perspective which justifies these changes in gender identity will indeed be targeted as "bullying" and "discrimination." Just a fact of the world we live in. But from a Christian perspective, it is an "either/or" integrity situation, despite your dismissal/minimization of Christian teachers who find themselves in the midst of said conflict, rather than a "both/and." The saddest part of it all is the foisting of, and normalizing of, the whole gender identity change agenda onto the children of the next generation - the children are the victims, no matter which way it gets sliced...

[Heirbyadoption]

Whether or not you agree or approve of LGBT children, they do exist.

I see no reason for LGB to be addressed at school for CHILDREN. Most children should not be engaging in sexual activity. I could care less what they are attracted to, they should not be encouraged to engage in any sexual activity at a young age. I see this as grooming and child abuse.

T is a child deciding they are a different gender then their biology. They are free to do so, but how can they force everyone else to play along when this may be from abuse, or mental dysfunction also? Should we support the results of abuse and validate the abuse that caused the child to desire to be someone they are not?

We do not let children drive, buy alcohol, cigarettes and many other things, but we will let them make life changing modifications to their bodies because they "feel" different then force a teacher to accept it when they see it differently?

This encapsulates the issue. I've watched it among LGBT friends and family, and yes, in public school. "Grooming and child abuse" through promotion and normalization of a wholly unBiblical lifestyle and view of gender, encouraged in their children, and usually coupled with a demand (rarely a request) for validation.

[temporal1]

I see no reason for LGB to be addressed at school for CHILDREN. Most children should not be engaging in sexual activity. I could care less what they are attracted to, they should not be encouraged to engage in any sexual activity at a young age. I see this as grooming and child abuse.

T is a child deciding they are a different gender then their biology. They are free to do so, but how can they force everyone else to play along when this may be from abuse, or mental dysfunction also? Should we support the results of abuse and validate the abuse that caused the child to desire to be someone they are not?

We do not let children drive, buy alcohol, cigarettes and many other things, but we will let them make life changing modifications to their bodies because they "feel" different then force a teacher to accept it when they see it differently?

This encapsulates the issue. I've watched it among LGBT friends and family, and yes, in public school. "Grooming and child abuse" through promotion and normalization of a wholly unBiblical lifestyle and view of gender, encouraged in their children, and usually coupled with a demand (rarely a request) for validation.

There is a twist when the bullied become the bullies.

Children, teens, minors, dependents enjoy many important legal protections. The path of granting them “equal rights” with adults under the law will soon lead to erosion of protections, which would be dismal. For them, their families, schools, churches, society.

It’s already gone too far.

Children are not small adults.
Learning to WAIT is one of the most valuable lessons that can be taught and practiced.
i struggle with it to this day.

“Waiting” is NOT a dirty word. Psychiatry recognizes it/self control as one of the most important aspects of emotional maturity.
It’s highly valued in scriptures.

What is emotional maturity?
In other words, emotional maturity is when someone can manage their emotions no matter their circumstances.
They know how to respond to tough situations and still keep their cool. It's a skill set they can consistently work on over time.

[Ken]

Robert illustrates some of what I'm perhaps confusingly trying to express, as he shares the above quote from you, Ken. It might be inversely said that it is the role of Christians (even if they work as teachers under the state) to engage biological and identity issues with honesty and integrity, just as they would any other issue, regardless of the consequences.

Further, conjunctively, addressing a child by a preferred nickname is one thing; addressing a child (or an adult) by an identity that distinctly endorses their preference to be identified as a different gender than that which God has given them, is another animal altogether.

The whole point of the discussion is that it isn't the role of the teacher to make that judgement. That is for the parents and student to decide. We are talking about public schools, not private religious schools.

And if you think this sort of thing is a trivial or consequence-free act on the part of the teacher then you are naïve about how classrooms operate. Students follow the lead of their teacher and this sort of denial or disrespect on the part of the teacher provides a flashing green light to classroom bullies who are going to take it a lot lot further in a lot of creatively cruel ways. Parents don't send their children to school to be bullied, harassed, and disrespected. And will not stand for it if teachers encourage it through their conduct. Nor should they.

I'm actually pretty familiar with public school classrooms... And yes, I understand your point. I'm simply saying that a Christian's faith must inherently come first in issues of integrity, whether it be in a public school setting or elsewhere; and in truth, neutrality is taken as endorsement, so it is a misnomer. From my limited perspective, you were correct that Christian teachers who cannot conscientiously endorse (whether silently or openly) the situation in question probably would do well to find another venue, or it will ultimately be found for them. And I share your concern for the harmful effects that bullying can have upon children, though Temporal1 raises a valid point that integrity in the area of gender identity is indeed a fading virtue (courtesy of the adults) and what she calls "lib ideology", and any disagreement with the evolving perspective which justifies these changes in gender identity will indeed be targeted as "bullying" and "discrimination." Just a fact of the world we live in. But from a Christian perspective, it is an "either/or" integrity situation, despite your dismissal/minimization of Christian teachers who find themselves in the midst of said conflict, rather than a "both/and." The saddest part of it all is the foisting of, and normalizing of, the whole gender identity change agenda onto the children of the next generation - the children are the victims, no matter which way it gets sliced...

When you agree to take a job in the public sector you agree to set aside your own personal beliefs when they come into conflict with your duties. That is the nature of the job. The issue of LGBT children seems to be a particular lightning-rod issue at the moment despite the fact that there is really very little relevant scripture to guide us on this topic. But how about we look at a different but somewhat related topic for which there is actually more scriptural direction and that is the role of women in society.

How would you feel about a teacher who held very strict complementarian views about the role of women and believed that God intended that the place of women is in the home and that women are never to be in a position of authority over men. And this teacher decided to act on those deeply-held beliefs in the classroom by never putting girls in any leadership positions within the classroom during any sort of group projects. And discouraging girls from studying or pursuing any topics like science, medicine, law, etc. that might put them into a position of authority over men. And that through his constant actions and attitude within the classroom, students picked up and modeled these attitudes themselves. Would you be OK with that? Does that teacher have the religious right to express and act on those deeply-held religious beliefs in the classroom?

As a parent of three daughters I would be enraged if any of my daughter's teachers took that attitude and acted on it in the classroom. And would seek to have that teacher dismissed because clearly his religious beliefs are in conflict with his ability to do his job. It doesn't matter how deeply held those beliefs are. It is not the role or right of that teacher to bring them into a public school classroom where they run contrary to both law and school policy and the vast majority of society. I see the issue of LGBT children as no different.

[joey_the_ox]

When you agree to take a job in the public sector you agree to set aside your own personal beliefs when they come into conflict with your duties. That is the nature of the job.

This is not self-evident and there are obvious cases in which this approach fails.

[Ken]

Whether or not you agree or approve of LGBT children, they do exist.

I see no reason for LGB to be addressed at school for CHILDREN. Most children should not be engaging in sexual activity. I could care less what they are attracted to, they should not be encouraged to engage in any sexual activity at a young age. I see this as grooming and child abuse.

T is a child deciding they are a different gender then their biology. They are free to do so, but how can they force everyone else to play along when this may be from abuse, or mental dysfunction also? Should we support the results of abuse and validate the abuse that caused the child to desire to be someone they are not?

We do not let children drive, buy alcohol, cigarettes and many other things, but we will let them make life changing modifications to their bodies because they "feel" different then force a teacher to accept it when they see it differently?

I'm not interested in arguing human sexuality here. My point is that this is an issue of public policy and something that needs to be decided at a higher level than the individual classroom teacher. That is why we have school boards, legislatures, and state departments of education.

It is not the job or role of teachers to second-guess public policy in EITHER direction on this issue. I would equally object to teachers who stray in a more liberal direction than public policy on this subject than I would to teachers who stray in a more conservative direction. If you open the door for conservative teachers to second-guess public policy and curriculum standards on this or any other topic, then you equally open the door for liberal teachers to do the same thing.

[HondurasKeiser]

It strikes me that you either have a severe misunderstanding of the constitutional questions involved or you're deliberately obfuscating the issues to win the argument.

Feel free to elaborate.

1. The Supreme Court has, thus far, refused to explicitly state that, when operating as extensions of state authority, teachers shall not be treated as porters of 1st Amendment rights. That is to say, there is still quite a lot of ambiguity in the case-law with respect to how much individual freedom of expression teachers are allowed in the their official capacity as teachers. Indeed, with respect to state-funded universities, SCOTUS has explicitly protected the 1st Amendment rights of professors, citing "free inquiry" and "critical engagement" as foundational to the purpose of education.
2. As an individual educator, it might be wise to err on the side of caution or neutrality as you laid out in subsequent posts; especially if you live in an area that is either highly heterogenous in belief or deeply inimical to your values. Or, if you live in an area that views the "gender-as-social-construct" zeitgeist as verboten - it might be wise to tow the traditional line.
3. To state though unequivocally (as you seemed to), that the Constitution forecloses on a teacher's right to engage their 1st Amendment rights to speech and religion in even the narrowest of ways, seems more like an act of wish-fulfillment than an actual reading of the case-law as it currently stands.
4. Yours (and nett's) may prove to be the most viable way forward in a society that is increasingly at odds with a Christian anthropology of sex and gender and the Supreme Court may soon proscribe a teacher's ability to function independently of his role as a state authority. Ricard v. Geary County Schools will likely provide an explicit carve-out or proscription of "teacher free-speech". We're just not there yet.

If the Supreme Court does create a teacher carve-out for 1st Amendment protections, I expect it might do so on the following grounds (forgive my clumsy prose):
Speech -
1. Teachers cannot be compelled to use speech that they believe is false, untrue, or not in accord with the parents' wishes, especially, if the legal name of the child has not been changed by the parents. (Remember that in many school districts, teachers are prohibited from informing parents of a name/pronouns change for fear that it violates a students' right to privacy and will inhibit their free expression). To prescribe certain speech, to force someone to speak in a certain way about very foundational notions of what it means to be human seems wholly antithetical to the idea of "Free Speech", a free and open society and critical inquiry as the foundation for true education. To quote Sweezy v. New Hampshire:

Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise, our civilization will stagnate and die.

Religion
2. What it means to be human, what it means to be gendered and sexed are ideas that flow out of anthropological understandings of the human. Those ideas can and certainly do have religious roots. For the State to require a teacher to espouse anthropological understandings of the human that they find untrue, abhorrent, or deeply inimical to the flourishing of the other party is an exercise in religious coercion that is at once forbidden by the Constitution and not present when viewed in reverse. That is to say, a dissenting teacher is not coercing students to engage in religious beliefs or practices when they refuse to call Jade, Boris (a case in my 8th grade class). They are simply dissenting and exposing students to a plurality of worldviews.

I would be extremely happy if a right-thinking Justice used either of these lines of reasoning to uphold a teacher's 1st Amendment rights in situ as a teacher but I am no constitutional scholar and I am sure there are some holes there as far as my legal analysis goes. The broader point I think still stands though; nothing about what a teacher can or cannot say with respect to pronouns and names has been decided yet...but it soon will be.

[HondurasKeiser]

Robert illustrates some of what I'm perhaps confusingly trying to express, as he shares the above quote from you, Ken. It might be inversely said that it is the role of Christians (even if they work as teachers under the state) to engage biological and identity issues with honesty and integrity, just as they would any other issue, regardless of the consequences.

Further, conjunctively, addressing a child by a preferred nickname is one thing; addressing a child (or an adult) by an identity that distinctly endorses their preference to be identified as a different gender than that which God has given them, is another animal altogether.

The whole point of the discussion is that it isn't the role of the teacher to make that judgement. That is for the parents and student to decide. We are talking about public schools, not private religious schools.

And if you think this sort of thing is a trivial or consequence-free act on the part of the teacher then you are naïve about how classrooms operate. Students follow the lead of their teacher and this sort of denial or disrespect on the part of the teacher provides a flashing green light to classroom bullies who are going to take it a lot lot further in a lot of creatively cruel ways. Parents don't send their children to school to be bullied, harassed, and disrespected. And will not stand for it if teachers encourage it through their conduct. Nor should they.

I'm actually pretty familiar with public school classrooms... And yes, I understand your point. I'm simply saying that a Christian's faith must inherently come first in issues of integrity, whether it be in a public school setting or elsewhere; and in truth, neutrality is taken as endorsement, so it is a misnomer. From my limited perspective, you were correct that Christian teachers who cannot conscientiously endorse (whether silently or openly) the situation in question probably would do well to find another venue, or it will ultimately be found for them. And I share your concern for the harmful effects that bullying can have upon children, though Temporal1 raises a valid point that integrity in the area of gender identity is indeed a fading virtue (courtesy of the adults) and what she calls "lib ideology", and any disagreement with the evolving perspective which justifies these changes in gender identity will indeed be targeted as "bullying" and "discrimination." Just a fact of the world we live in. But from a Christian perspective, it is an "either/or" integrity situation, despite your dismissal/minimization of Christian teachers who find themselves in the midst of said conflict, rather than a "both/and." The saddest part of it all is the foisting of, and normalizing of, the whole gender identity change agenda onto the children of the next generation - the children are the victims, no matter which way it gets sliced...

Heir....here's a question for we 2 Kingdom Anabaptists (and I am not asking this to preen or appear self-righteous). Should we who believe that state power is off-limits for followers of Christ, be acting as extensions of state power in the public school system in the first place?

[HondurasKeiser]

When you agree to take a job in the public sector you agree to set aside your own personal beliefs when they come into conflict with your duties. That is the nature of the job.

This is not self-evident and there are obvious cases in which this approach fails.

Indeed, we are not France and we do not have a strict policy of Laïcité because up until very recently, our English Common Law system assumed a kind of broad consensus and continuity with foundational notions of anthropology and morality that were seen as beyond the purview of law and law-givers.

[HondurasKeiser]

Whether or not you agree or approve of LGBT children, they do exist.

I see no reason for LGB to be addressed at school for CHILDREN. Most children should not be engaging in sexual activity. I could care less what they are attracted to, they should not be encouraged to engage in any sexual activity at a young age. I see this as grooming and child abuse.

T is a child deciding they are a different gender then their biology. They are free to do so, but how can they force everyone else to play along when this may be from abuse, or mental dysfunction also? Should we support the results of abuse and validate the abuse that caused the child to desire to be someone they are not?

We do not let children drive, buy alcohol, cigarettes and many other things, but we will let them make life changing modifications to their bodies because they "feel" different then force a teacher to accept it when they see it differently?

I'm not interested in arguing human sexuality here. My point is that this is an issue of public policy and something that needs to be decided at a higher level than the individual classroom teacher. That is why we have school boards, legislatures, and state departments of education.

It is not the job or role of teachers to second-guess public policy in EITHER direction on this issue. I would equally object to teachers who stray in a more liberal direction than public policy on this subject than I would to teachers who stray in a more conservative direction. If you open the door for conservative teachers to second-guess public policy and curriculum standards on this or any other topic, then you equally open the door for liberal teachers to do the same thing.

Could you give me an example of potential liberal-educator excess?