Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[Ken]

Tanner Cross was put on administrative leave and forbidden from accessing school property for comments he made at a School Board meeting. He has been seriously vindicate on a judgment on his TRO and Preliminary Injunction.

He said he would not call someone a preferred pronoun because of religious objection.

In the article he claimed it was his freedom of speech right to use the name he wanted. So when his students and co-workers decide to start referring to him as "Mr. Bigot" or worse, instead of his correct name "Mr. Cross" as is THEIR first amendment freedom of speech right to do so, what is going to happen?

I don't see this ending well.

[steve-in-kville]

Switzerland was trying desperately to get rid of us in the early 1700s, the Palatinate and surrounding territories were slightly more tolerant but imposed restrictions, and Pennsylvania was actively inviting us to settle there. So around 4400 did.

My family came from the Palatinate area. I traced my ancestry back to the village we came from.

I always thought the first amendment was more about freedom of the press than religion. Must be my public school education.

Didn't some law just get passed that protected journalists from having their notes and records seized by the government?

ETA: https://apnews.com/article/politics-bus ... 662e59ec6e

[PetrChelcicky]

A general annotation.
My impression has always been that the First Amendment got a lot "deeper" or "more principled" in the era of O. W. Holmes and Brandeis - who broadened it into a protection for all kinds of dissident minorities. The climax of this was the Skokie case.I just read a NYT article about the division within the ACLU of today - on the one hand they gave an award to Goldberger (then the main advocate in the Skokie case), but Goldberger felt somewhat estranged by the masses of younger participants who just argued against the traditional ACLU tradition w.r.t. Skokie. So we seem to go into a new dark age where Holmes and Brandeis are forgotten.

The central problem is in my eyes that people do no longer understand the practical impact of the Golden Rule - liberties can only survive if people grant EACH OTHER liberty. That "mutuality" is the sound base of our present rather vague ideas about "universality" or "principledness" of rights.
Insofar I share Ken's basic point: If one wants to give other a pronoun they don't like one ought to accept a "title" one doesn't like. There is a point at which this can deflect to stupid harassment (on both sides) - I don't believe that there can be perfect rules w.r.t.speech (because speech has infinite ways of varying), but within a a certain range people are able to live with arbitrary rules as long as they are applied evenhandedly (and that's the problem of course).

[PetrChelcicky]

By the way.
I have often argued that the United States are indeed exceptional and a "beacon" - and this just because of the Holmes/Brandeis tradition in law. If freedom of speech falls in the U.S., it will fall everywhere (and of course here in Germany, too).

[temporal1]

By the way.
I have often argued that the United States are indeed exceptional and a "beacon" - and this just because of the Holmes/Brandeis tradition in law. If freedom of speech falls in the U.S., it will fall everywhere (and of course here in Germany, too).

Your views on teacher authority? Or any authority? Parental? Church groups? Workplace? No rule-making for any group?

In pure democracies, is this the goal? (No authority? No echelon? No headship?) Children+legal minors have full adult rights, without full adult responsibilities? (i see the U.S. headed in this direction for children+teens, with disastrous outlook.) For them and all.

(i don’t believe) women are small men, nor are children+teens small adults.
(i don’t believe) lust/sin is love.

The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one wants to be treated.
It is a maxim that is found in most religions and cultures.
It can be considered an ethic of reciprocity in some religions, although different religions treat it differently.
Wikipedia

Most practice the Golden Rule without force of the sword.
Respect for elders and respect for authority are also beliefs that are common in most religions and cultures in the world.
Children+teens are commonly recognized to be dependents with special protections, without full adult rights/responsibilities.

[temporal1]

Ernie:
I believe they, and their proponents were in the minority.
They wouldn’t have these rights nor the support of society had the courts not overruled the majority of the the citizens.
When you have a society such as the US now is, where there is no solid sense of right and wrong, and has rejected Truth, and everything about morality is relative, then you have a majority that is only bounded by the laws of the land.

They are asleep at the wheel so to speak, and when they wake up to find what they once thought to be wrong, is now legal, they adjust accordingly. It doesn’t matter if it is immodesty, fornication/homosexuality/adultery/pedophilia/beastialit greed, racism, abortion, or drugs. They just adjust to the new norm.

Not all people do, thank God.
But a huge amount of society does exactly that.
They equate legal to moral.
So had these things not become legal, a majority of people would still think them to be wrong.

On your last edited note, what minority right do you think is more powerful in this country today, gay or religious?
There is no question that gay rights are much more stylish that religion is.
Today Congress voted to make Pulse gay nightclub a national monument.

i cannot “like” or “heart” these sad words. but they are correct.

[Robert]

In the article he claimed it was his freedom of speech right to use the name he wanted. So when his students and co-workers decide to start referring to him as "Mr. Bigot" or worse, instead of his correct name "Mr. Cross" as is THEIR first amendment freedom of speech right to do so, what is going to happen?

I don't see this ending well.

This is a unique case because he never did anything in the classroom, just stated he had issues with doing it in a meeting. They removed him because of what he said he would do instead of what he did. Very bad precedent.

He did not say he would not call a child the name the child chose, but that he would not use chosen pronouns. Pronouns are a function of grammar. They are/can be shaped by culture as all language can. Language has not changed yet. He should not be punished because it has not, he has some religious beliefs that are similar to many here that makes it hard, and science that points to two genders that are assigned by DNA not choice.

I spend all day asking people a question with two variants.

"How can I help you, sir?"
"How can I help you, Ma'am?"

I often respond to questions and statements with "Yes, sir." or "Yes, Ma'am." Do I have to start saying "Yes, it." I could just say "yes" but then I am not following Paul's writings to treat others are more important then myself. Yes, calling a person a pronoun they choose would be a sign of respect, unless the pronoun they choose was profane or chosen because it was ridiculous.

If you are so keen on using chosen pronouns. Start using mine. My chosen pronoun is "All time ruler of space and time." I keep sharing this and no one has yet to call me that.

[Josh]

My chosen pronouns are "I am Ken, and I am always wrong"/"Josh is always right"/"Don't listen to my ignorant opinions"

Please respect my choices

[temporal1]

How dare they presume gender?!
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57378117

But what can be expected from those who believe mere conception equates to human babies?
https://www.today.com/parents/meghan-ma ... ed-t210845

If wanted pregnancies produce human babies, then unwanted pregnancies produce human babies/human life.

Water is wet when a drink is wanted. It’s also wet when a flood is unwanted.
Water does not become something else because it’s unwanted.

[Josh]

How dare they presume gender?!
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57378117

But what can be expected from those who believe mere conception equates to human babies?
https://www.today.com/parents/meghan-ma ... ed-t210845

If wanted pregnancies produce human babies, then unwanted pregnancies produce human babies/human life.

Water is wet when a drink is wanted. It’s also wet when a flood is unwanted.
Water does not become something else because it’s unwanted.

It's interesting how it's an unborn baby and a human life when it's wanted, but just a blob of tissue if unwanted, isn't it?