Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[Robert]

Please remember this thread is about the 1st amendment and how we deal with it as Anabaptists.

[PetrChelcicky]

For the record:
What Robert and Josh wrote now about their pronouns of choice would be called a "hate incident" in Britain and would get them at least an entry into a governmental list of transphobic "haters". And that is because Britain has no constitution and thus no First Amendment. (Here I rely to the case of Harry Miller who among else was attacked for tweeting: "I was assigned Mamall by birth, but my orientation is Fish. So don't mis species me." https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... unlawfully)

[Josh]

Lots of Anabaptists don’t live under the freedom of the first amendment, including our brothers and sisters to the north. Their provinces lack the same commitment to freedom as well.

I have a newfound appreciation for my own state’s commitment to religious liberty. But of note is that the first amendment isn’t terribly helpful in California. It took a year to get any legal acknowledgment that the first amendment still applies out there.

Dictators and tyrants think “shall not be infringed” actually means “shall not be unfringed unless I make up an excuse, even though I won’t restrict my own personal freedoms that I’m taking away from you”. We saw this rather clearly with Newsom, Michigan’s governor, and Dr Birx.

[temporal1]

“The Supreme Court Has Carved Out One Religious Exemption After Another.
The Next May Be A Blow To LGBTQ Rights.”
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... tq-rights/
Closing:

.. I have very little doubt that the religious conservatives on the bench could say there is nothing in the Constitution that mentions LGBTQ rights,” he said.
”But we have something in the Constitution that talks about religious rights, and that’s called the First Amendment.”.

This report ^^ leans against Christianity in all the predictable ways. They never take a day off.

I can not refer to all debates in this thread.
Of course I support Kermos' position.
But I emphasize that we will not be able to defend conscientious objection as a particular Christian privilege.

"A strong right" means that everyone has to grant it to everyone - and I am quite willing to grant it to a pagan or Hinduist, too. (Mark that this is about non-participation, NOT-doing; it does not mean that we grant everyone a right to DO everything which he deems morally obligatory - this would not work.)

At America’s founding, religious freedom was understood to simply mean that different states wouldn’t mandate one particular sect of Christianity. There was no expectation it would even extend to non Christian religions or none at all.

For example, an atheist didn’t used to be able to swear on oath and thus couldn’t do things like serve in office.

(i believe)
Josh is correct regarding the founding.

It’s unlikely ANY other motivation behind the migration (which probably was a certainty, i.e., migration to the Americas from some continent, by peoples with some religious dogma - “religious freedom,” “free speech,” etc., would NOT have been priorities (as Christians are known for tolerating/allowing/defending).

i once heard a Native American speak to this.
His view was, “some large migration” from somewhere, some continent, was inevitable, and, as such, he did not believe Europeans bringing Christianity were the worst that might have happened.

(this, from my memory, i wish i had the source.) his broader view was so extraordinary (to me) i have not forgotten.
i believe he is wise, and correct. ”we never know the bullet that DIDN’T hit us.”

(i believe)
PetrC’s understanding is a result of 1960’s-70’s era when the world’s most spoiled+privileged (Christian) generation decided they, themselves, “knew everything better than our 1 Christian God,” and proceeded to act on it. esp in courts of law.

(i was there.)
i did not foresee the time would come when conservatives would be made to fight for their right to various basic freedoms.
the worm has turned. now it’s lib intolerance. the flower children promised to “love everyone” but that was a shallow+vain promise. having been to law school, they’re now acting on their particular brand of intolerances.

i give credit to my father. he knew how things would unfold.
he warned, “they may not think they like Christianity, but it’s ‘way better than any other. throw it out and suffer regrets.”
at the time, any description Eastern religion, and self-imagined religions, were idealized - on every street corner.
“anything-but” Christianity was sought after. with some stunning failures. gurus were in. “worship of self as god.” etc.

not sure, but interested, how CMs were coping in those years. the ripple effect carries on. everywhere.
presumably, MCUSA was a by product (?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite_Church_USA

[Josh]

Anabaptism exists outside of the 1st amendment. I’d go so far as to say it’s irrelevant. The most obvious example is plain Anabaptism in Canada, which persists despite the lack of religious freedom up there.

[temporal1]

Anabaptism exists outside of the 1st amendment.

I’d go so far as to say it’s irrelevant.
The most obvious example is plain Anabaptism in Canada, which persists despite the lack of religious freedom up there.

In that Jesus exists outside earthly governments, “revolutionary” in His day, and continuing, all are invited by Him to follow Him, none are excluded from His sacred invitation. This empowered the literally enslavened and marginalized in before unheard of ways.

There is no shortage of examples in the contemporary world. As you say, even in Canada (and western Europe).

This thread is about Anabaptists.

(Others may recall differently?) - one of the intriguing components that drew me into MD was consistent reference to Jesus Christ at center, above any group label, even “Anabaptist” (on a forum of mostly Anabaptists and seeking/interested “others”).
(It seemed to me) care was given to not take any denom label or church sign as guarantee of what would be found within (?)

There was some discussion about (some) Anabaptists not wanting to be referred to as a “denom,” at all; not wanting their fellowships to be called churches; not wanting to be described as Protestants; not wanting their children to be called kids. i try to be careful about language. i often wonder what words may be unappreciated or misconstrued.

In a world that HIGHLY values labels+categories, it’s challenging to find words that translate to being authentically Jesus-centric (as DanZ might say) without being compromised in some way.

It’s clear, Jesus somehow prevails in the darkest corners, without any gov tolerance at all.

This thread is about Anabaptists in the U.S., and the 1st Amendment.
One benefit is that Anabaptists (and Christians) here are able to reach out through various missions, including distribution of printed materials, to others with fewer, or no freedoms. Even to those in prison. Jesus did not overlook anyone.

He did this without regard to human law or government approval. Josh is correct. Jesus made human law irrelevant. He went above+beyond, without a law degree or organized blocs. He made it irrelevant without conventional organized revolution.

For public school, my grdaughter recently was asked to list 12 books that ”changed her life.” She’s read many!
We had fun talking about how she literally learned to read via Preschool Daily Devotions, and Preschool Bible.
Not by our plan. We read, she learned. Nothing more than that.

We talked about how the Bible is/has been the #1 Best Seller of all books. Not mentioned in public school.
i wonder if her teacher will notice? Talk of the Bible is highly discouraged in her school.
Sharing this takes some courage for her; i’m sorry to say. Children swim in a sea of gov funded liars.
Including her Bible reading experience becomes her innocent real life Christian witness. May they not succeed in pounding it out of her.

The Holy Spirit knows how to use small things for great Good.

[Robert]

Anabaptism exists outside of the 1st amendment. I’d go so far as to say it’s irrelevant. The most obvious example is plain Anabaptism in Canada, which persists despite the lack of religious freedom up there.

What the 1st Amendment gives us is the ability to be conscientious objectors and the ability to exercise out faith without negative consequences. It means we have little excuses for not expressing our faith freely and openly.

[Josh]

Anabaptism exists outside of the 1st amendment. I’d go so far as to say it’s irrelevant. The most obvious example is plain Anabaptism in Canada, which persists despite the lack of religious freedom up there.

What the 1st Amendment gives us is the ability to be conscientious objectors and the ability to exercise out faith without negative consequences. It means we have little excuses for not expressing our faith freely and openly.

Agreed.

In some Christian groups the constitution and bill of rights are almost put on a level like scripture, as if American is almost the kingdom of God here on earth, because of these wonderful “freedoms”. I really question that world-view.

[temporal1]

Anabaptism exists outside of the 1st amendment. I’d go so far as to say it’s irrelevant. The most obvious example is plain Anabaptism in Canada, which persists despite the lack of religious freedom up there.

What the 1st Amendment gives us is the ability to be conscientious objectors and the ability to exercise out faith without negative consequences. It means we have little excuses for not expressing our faith freely and openly.

Agreed.
In some Christian groups the constitution and bill of rights are almost put on a level like scripture, as if American is almost the kingdom of God here on earth, because of these wonderful “freedoms”. I really question that world-view.

That’s the thing. As you stated above:

At America’s founding, religious freedom was understood to simply mean that different states wouldn’t mandate one particular sect of Christianity. There was no expectation it would even extend to non Christian religions or none at all.

You and/or i, others, are free to disagree to our hearts’ content about others!
So, disagree, don’t join, don’t support. Post away, criticize, on public forums. No one’s forcing it, it’s not forced by the sword.

Hopefully, it’s allowed by the sword, altho plenty are attempting to reverse it. To not allow Christianity.
(Well, as long as Christians align with all the world’s desires, it’s ok.) Hillary spoke to that. About the time she was contemplating becoming a Methodist minister, but her book was pulled due to plagiarism. Anyone interested in Hillary as pastor? (Not i.)

2015 / “Powers: Saint Hillary seeks to save Christians from Christianity”
“Self-satisfied authoritarian response to religious people exposes secular sacred cows.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... /26462609/

2017 / Oops. Her pastor did it:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/r ... 561331001/

But, i agree. With or without the sword, Jesus reigns.

[Josh]

How about this:

America wasn’t founded to make a comfortable homeland for plain people.

William Penn actually did choose to do so, but he was in charge of 1 out of 13 states, and it turns out Ohio became the most comfortable homeland. At America’s founding, Ohio was still not sure if it was French territory or Connecticut.

I strongly disagree with the idea of America-as-manifest-destiny-for-freedom. I don’t think America is somehow superior or special compared to other countries.