Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[Ken]

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?

A kindergarten teacher who wanted to teach broadly about human sexuality when the state has determined that this subject is reserved for higher grades. Does this teacher have a First Amendment "freedom of speech" right to do so in their classroom over the objections of the school and parents?

Would you approve of this? And would it make a difference if they held a religious belief that they thought compelled them to do so? There are indeed some cultures that introduce human sexuality at a much earlier age than we do.

[temporal1]

Not that this is an end on its own, but ..
everyone who pays taxes has a vested interest in public schools, whether they have students in them or not.

What happens in gov schools will eventually find its way in the world, thru employment, the culture, churches, et al.

Parents who homeschool/private school are well to keep in mind, those children will one day interact with the products of gov ed (that everyone’s combined tax dollars funded).

Parents need not be alone in this.

The Public Treasury should not be a big petty cash drawer to fund lib partisan politics/ideologies, EXPERIMENTS. This needs to end.
Separation of state/church was never intended to default to humanism, atheism, secularism, or other.

Freedom of religion does not auto-translate to freedom from religion.

[Ken]

Not that this is an end on its own, but ..
everyone who pays taxes has a vested interest in public schools, whether they have students in them or not.

What happens in gov schools will eventually find its way in the world, thru employment, the culture, churches, et al.

Parents who homeschool/private school are well to keep in mind, those children will one day interact with the products of gov ed (that everyone’s combined tax dollars funded).

Parents need not be alone in this.

The Public Treasury should not be a big petty cash drawer to fund lib partisan politics/ideologies, EXPERIMENTS. This needs to end.
Separation of state/church was never intended to default to humanism, atheism, secularism, or other.

Freedom of religion does not auto-translate to freedom from religion.

I actually agree with you on this issue. In a democracy it is the PUBLIC who should be in charge of the public schools through their representatives on school boards, state legislatures, and so forth. And the public should be directly involved in the development of curriculum standards and other school policies. Which should be developed through extensive and open public processes.

It is not the role of individual teachers or administrators, conservative or liberal, to second guess the public process and substitute their own judgement in the classroom. Whether in a more liberal direction, or a more conservative direction.

[HondurasKeiser]

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?

A kindergarten teacher who wanted to teach broadly about human sexuality when the state has determined that this subject is reserved for higher grades. Does this teacher have a First Amendment "freedom of speech" right to do so in their classroom over the objections of the school and parents?

Would you approve of this? And would it make a difference if they held a religious belief that they thought compelled them to do so?

That's already occurring, though probably not in Florida for much longer. Do you see a categorical difference between a Kindergarten teacher, in say future-Florida, violating the established law, inventing their own curriculum and "teaching" 5-year-olds about the Gender Bread Person and that of a Kindergarten teacher in present-day California refusing to refer to Jaxson as Jazzy? I do. The first teacher is demanding to teach zir beliefs about gender and sex and what it means to be human to young children in a state that has foreclosed on that option for their proscribed curriculum. That is to say, they are demanding to impose their beliefs on their students. (That by-the-bye, is happening in many, many districts around the country. Are you comfortable with that?) The second teacher is simply asking to not have to mouth current and certainly malleable pieties which amount to declarations of what gender and sex are; when they believe those declarations to be false.

[Ken]

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

A kindergarten teacher who wanted to teach broadly about human sexuality when the state has determined that this subject is reserved for higher grades. Does this teacher have a First Amendment "freedom of speech" right to do so in their classroom over the objections of the school and parents?

Would you approve of this? And would it make a difference if they held a religious belief that they thought compelled them to do so?

That's already occurring, though probably not in Florida for much longer. Do you see a categorical difference between a Kindergarten teacher, in say future-Florida, violating the established law, inventing their own curriculum and "teaching" 5-year-olds about the Gender Bread Person and that of a Kindergarten teacher in present-day California refusing to refer to Jaxson as Jazzy? I do. The first teacher is demanding to teach zir beliefs about gender and sex and what it means to be human to young children in a state that has foreclosed on that option for their proscribed curriculum. That is to say, they are demanding to impose their beliefs on their students. (That by-the-bye, is happening in many, many districts around the country. Are you comfortable with that?) The second teacher is simply asking to not have to mouth current and certainly malleable pieties which amount to declarations of what gender and sex are; when they believe those declarations to be false.

Like I said, I don't think it is the role of teachers to second guess public policy with respect to curriculum standards in either direction, liberal or conservative. Teachers who do so should be corrected and removed from the classroom if they cannot do the job they were hired to do. And if they believe strongly on the subject they should engage in the public process rather than substituting their own judgement in the classroom.

Where I would disagree with you is that this is more than just "mouthing pieties". Teachers set the tone in a classroom and students follow their lead. A teacher who refuses to acknowledge the sexuality of an LGBT child is inviting other children to follow their lead and do so in much more cruel ways. You are inviting teachers to make their classroom into an unsafe and unwelcome place for specific students. I think that is wrong.

[RZehr]

[
Where I would disagree with you is that this is more than just "mouthing pieties". Teachers set the tone in a classroom and students follow their lead. A teacher who refuses to acknowledge the sexuality of an LGBT child is inviting other children to follow their lead and do so in much more cruel ways. You are inviting teachers to make their classroom into an unsafe and unwelcome place for specific students. I think that is wrong.

And I would be equally concerned that the teacher is using that influence to perpetuate evil by pushing this agenda upon students and society. It is, as you say, inviting teachers to make the classroom into an unsafe and unwelcome place for specific Christian students. Who will be subject to other students following their lead and cruelly ostracize Christian students for their beliefs.

[HondurasKeiser]

Where I would disagree with you is that this is more than just "mouthing pieties". Teachers set the tone in a classroom and students follow their lead. A teacher who refuses to acknowledge the sexuality of an LGBT child is inviting other children to follow their lead and do so in much more cruel ways. You are inviting teachers to make their classroom into an unsafe and unwelcome place for specific students. I think that is wrong.

Yes, this is where we disagree then. Though I will try to lay out a positive case for my rationale and how I might handle said issues in my classroom:
1. Topics of LGBT should not be discussed in elementary/middle school classrooms in a formal way as part of the curriculum. They may be discussed in an academic and dispassionate way in high school in certain classes. e.g. I discuss transgenderism and notions of human sexuality in my philosophy course for seniors as part of a broader conversation about what it means to be human and how one arrives at, philosophically-speaking, an affirmation of or a denial of, transgenderism. I cannot though think of a reason that topics of gender and sexuality might need to be discussed in an Algebra course.
2. If said topics do come up in an informal way e.g. A student mentions his 2 fathers, that can be acknowledged without having it lead to a discourse on the glories of gay pride. It is nonsensical to think of a pre-pubescent child as possessing a sexuality and so the question of my affirmation of or denial of their non-existant sexuality, is moot.
3. I can affirm and respect all students without ever referring to their sexuality and I cannot imagine a situation where I might have to unless they "came out" to me. That happened just recently to my wife and I at the same time. The student knows we are both Christian and hold to traditional notions of sex and gender but we nevertheless let her know that we care for and respect her.
4. Transgenderism is a different animal though from sexuality and it makes little sense, except for purposes of political expediency, to lump them in with the LGB crowd.
5. To accept someone as gay as to accept that they have sexual desires in a particular direction. I can do that without having to speak an un-truth; unless of course I am required to affirm or state that homosexuality is no different, in any meaningful way, from heterosexuality.
6. To accept someone as Trans we are told, one must use their pronouns and new name. It is to affirm that sex and gender are distinct notions, that one can change one's gender, that one can have no gender in any meaningful sense or that one is what they say they are despite all evidence to the contrary.
7. In my affirmation I am tacitly admitting all of these propositions - essentially mouthing current sexually progressive pieties that no one believed ten minutes ago. Telegraphing to the trans student as well as the rest of the class that said notions are true, even though in my core, I know them to be false.
8. I want to be respectful of all of my students but I cannot knowingly lie about who they are as a person. So I will have to find a way to thread that needle.
9. For Jade that wanted to be Boris, I simply told her that on the official role and legally, she was listed as Jade and that's what I would continue to do. It prompted no backlash from the student, no other student was privy to that conversation so bullying was preempted and as far as I can tell, our teacher-student relationship has not suffered.
10. I can understand a concern for safety - that though is not my highest value as either a person or a teacher.

[Ken]

[
Where I would disagree with you is that this is more than just "mouthing pieties". Teachers set the tone in a classroom and students follow their lead. A teacher who refuses to acknowledge the sexuality of an LGBT child is inviting other children to follow their lead and do so in much more cruel ways. You are inviting teachers to make their classroom into an unsafe and unwelcome place for specific students. I think that is wrong.

And I would be equally concerned that the teacher is using that influence to perpetuate evil by pushing this agenda upon students and society. It is, as you say, inviting teachers to make the classroom into an unsafe and unwelcome place for specific Christian students. Who will be subject to other students following their lead and cruelly ostracize Christian students for their beliefs.

Of course. Bullying of any kind and for any reason should be not allowed in any classroom. Whether it is conservative Christian students, Muslim students, Jewish students, Black students, or LGBT students. The job of the teacher is to make sure that none of that happens.

[temporal1]

An example of bullying children of faith, outside classrooms, by products of gov schools:
Young girls are playing weddings with dolls/stuffed animals.

They decide 2 males will marry, with a priest officiating. One child knows in her faith this is not right or possible, either two grooms or the priest officiating. Sacrilege.

The children and woke parents laugh and do not correct. (Correcting brings labels of hating homosexuals, and strict banishment from the group.)

Bullying.

In the PNW, with rainbow painted street crosswalks and so much more, this would be the common expectation for children, not the unusual.

[nett]

[
Where I would disagree with you is that this is more than just "mouthing pieties". Teachers set the tone in a classroom and students follow their lead. A teacher who refuses to acknowledge the sexuality of an LGBT child is inviting other children to follow their lead and do so in much more cruel ways. You are inviting teachers to make their classroom into an unsafe and unwelcome place for specific students. I think that is wrong.

And I would be equally concerned that the teacher is using that influence to perpetuate evil by pushing this agenda upon students and society. It is, as you say, inviting teachers to make the classroom into an unsafe and unwelcome place for specific Christian students. Who will be subject to other students following their lead and cruelly ostracize Christian students for their beliefs.

It seems like you're moving towards an unavoidable logical conclusion that Christians with convictions about these things cannot work in these public institutions.

If the public institution's goal is to harm children, it's kind of hard for a teacher to "do their job"