Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[Ken]

The 1st Amendment just guarantees we will not have negative consequences from our expression of speech, press, or religion. The Constitution states these rights are given by the Creator, not the state. The state can not punish a person for using them because of the 1st Amendment.

This means we really have no reason to be the silent in the land, as we had to be other places.

Also most Anabaptists of European ancestry had forefathers who immigrated here in part due assurances of religious freedom. Either the guarantees provided by the Constitution if they came after 1789. Or earlier colonial guarantees of religious freedom such as William Penn's "Charter of Privileges" issued in 1701 that guaranteed similar rights of religious freedom in the Pennsylvania Colony.

There are reasons why our ancestors chose North America and not similar new world colonies like say Brazil or Argentina, which did not have separation of church and state or freedom of religion. It isn't coincidence that PA and OH are among the historic centers of Anabaptism, as well as similar places like Ontario.

The consequences do not matter. Jesus gave a great commission to us. The constitution can say whatever it wants. My master told me to do something and I will, free or oppressed.

If I'm in a free land, I will preach and witness for him. If I'm in North Korea, I will preach and witness for him.

But that isn't the question. The question is if you are planning to settle with a group of like-minded believers fleeing persecution, like say Ukrainian Mennonites in 1880, do you choose a place like Kansas or do you choose North Korea?

[Josh]

As a Christian, the 1st Amendment is irrelevant to me. I will practice my faith no matter what, free or oppressed.

The 1st Amendment just guarantees we will not have negative consequences from our expression of speech, press, or religion. The Constitution states these rights are given by the Creator, not the state. The state can not punish a person for using them because of the 1st Amendment.

This means we really have no reason to be the silent in the land, as we had to be other places.

Also most Anabaptists of European ancestry had forefathers who immigrated here in part due assurances of religious freedom. Either the guarantees provided by the Constitution if they came after 1789. Or earlier colonial guarantees of religious freedom such as William Penn's "Charter of Privileges" issued in 1701 that guaranteed similar rights of religious freedom in the Pennsylvania Colony.

There are reasons why our ancestors chose North America and not similar new world colonies like say Brazil or Argentina, which did not have separation of church and state or freedom of religion. It isn't coincidence that PA and OH are among the historic centers of Anabaptism, as well as similar places like Ontario.

Except South America is home to huge amounts of Anabaptists and in particular plain Anabaptists. Mexico and Paraguay come to mind. In my own denomination, Brazil is an important place (and some people think it affords more freedoms than Canada, for example).

If anything, the hub of Anabaptism (particularly of the non English language variety) lies in South America. That’s where you’ll find something like a large leprosy hospital funded by and run by Mennonites. Nothing of that scale exists in North America.

[temporal1]

[This does not state her religion/denomination.]

“A Kansas teacher is suing school officials for requiring her to address students by their preferred names,
saying the policy violates her religious freedom”
https://www.wlfi.com/news/national/a-ka ... 7222d.html

A Kansas teacher is suing her school district superintendent, board members and principal after being suspended for not using a student's preferred name.

Pamela Ricard, who teaches math at Fort Riley Middle School, says she refuses to use the preferred names and pronouns of transgender and nonbinary students because it violates her religious beliefs.

After being disciplined multiple times for refusing to use a student's preferred name, Ricard filed a federal lawsuit against the Geary County Schools Unified School District on Monday.

In the lawsuit, she argues that denying requests to allow her to ignore students' preferred names and pronouns "deprived her of due process and equal protection of law" and violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and exercise of religion.
Ricard also accused the defendants of breaching their contract with her. .. ..

[JimFoxvog]

...
The 1st Amendment just guarantees we will not have negative consequences from our expression of speech, press, or religion. The Constitution states these rights are given by the Creator, not the state.
...

Minor correction: The Constitution does not mention a Creator. The Declaration of Independence, which has no force of law in the US, does.

[Ken]

[This does not state her religion/denomination.]

“A Kansas teacher is suing school officials for requiring her to address students by their preferred names,
saying the policy violates her religious freedom”
https://www.wlfi.com/news/national/a-ka ... 7222d.html

A Kansas teacher is suing her school district superintendent, board members and principal after being suspended for not using a student's preferred name.

Pamela Ricard, who teaches math at Fort Riley Middle School, says she refuses to use the preferred names and pronouns of transgender and nonbinary students because it violates her religious beliefs.

After being disciplined multiple times for refusing to use a student's preferred name, Ricard filed a federal lawsuit against the Geary County Schools Unified School District on Monday.

In the lawsuit, she argues that denying requests to allow her to ignore students' preferred names and pronouns "deprived her of due process and equal protection of law" and violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and exercise of religion.
Ricard also accused the defendants of breaching their contract with her. .. ..

Are the kids in her class and her co-workers also entitled under the first amendment to call this teacher whatever names they want to call her? Without any discipline?

That could make for some interesting classes. Middle school students are especially known for their *creative* use of language to say the least.

[temporal1]

Children, dependents, minors, enjoy important special legal protections+privileges, along with important restrictions.

Families, and schools, employers, etc., are not democracies/pure democracies.

Children, legal minors, are not small adults.

[Josh]

When my dad went to school there was a policy against using nicknames.

I don’t see what’s wrong with using names given when someone is born. Children don’t need to change their names. Nor do they need to change their “pronouns”.

[JimFoxvog]

When my dad went to school there was a policy against using nicknames.

I don’t see what’s wrong with using names given when someone is born. Children don’t need to change their names. Nor do they need to change their “pronouns”.

In school, they used people's legal names. If the legal name is changed, I think we should use it.

Pronouns? Allow the speaker freedom of speech. Call me he, she, it, they, or "that weirdo" as you wish when talking to others, but call me Jim (or James if you have to) or "you" when talking to me.

[temporal1]

Rights of passage, earned and legal.

Laws remain in place to drive motor vehicles. Children+teens must WAIT.

Sexuality is ‘way more important and complex, with greater consequences, than driving cars.
There are spiritual consequences (gov never mentions).

Legal minors/dependents need to WAIT.
Once an adult, of legal age: then come adult choices+privileges. and consequences.

Until then: WAIT.

Altho children may not be convinced, even adults must abide by rules, laws, pay for privileges, etc.

One significant experience of youth is learning self-control, self-discipline, respect of authority, etc.
It can not only improve overall life quality+opportunity, it can literally save lives.

Gov schools are not fit for young students. Over decades, poor political policies have ruined them.

Parents and others who love children accept that “saying no,” is part of the responsibility of helping them mature.
It’s often “not fun” for adult or child, sometimes it’s HATED, on one or both sides, but it’s part of the necessary process of human development.

[Ken]

Ah, but the Supreme Court disagrees. It has ruled numerous times that the First Amendment does not stop at the schoolhouse door and does not have an age limit. Both in terms of freedom of expression and in terms of freedom of religion. If a teacher chooses to invoke the First Amendment to use names that a student objects to, she can hardly object when students invoke that same First Amendment right to use the names that they choose for her.

Or maybe this just isn't a First Amendment case in the first place. And maybe schools have the right and responsibility to regulate conduct by both teachers and students.

In several states the legislature have imposed restrictions on how the topic of racism can be taught in schools, and Florida is considering restricting how teachers can talk about LGBT issues. If you agree with either or both of those then you agree that the First Amendment does not give teachers unlimited rights of free speech in the classroom and that schools can govern speech within the classroom. Both by teachers and students.