Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[temporal1]

Someone who simply decides that their beliefs are incompatible with the duties of the job and just resigns isn't going to suffer those consequences.

Do you believe this is best for the parents, students and teachers?

Ie. do you think that any teacher who does not believe that they can, in good faith, use a student's desired delusional pronouns should resign for the good of all?

Definitely not.
i grieve what politics has done to decimate gov schools.

When i was young, U.S. public schools were the envy of the world, the belief was they would only improve with time.
in my area, MOST children/teens went to public schools, no matter socio-economic status, faith, culture, country of origin. There was a Catholic school, not huge, but those students moved to public schools by 8th grade, i think.

The broad mix was healthy. Children played and went to school with neighborhood children.

By the time our children were school age, i noticed, in our neighborhood, children would disperse to several different schools, this seems to continue. Neighborhoods are not the same.

i like private schools and home schools.
i regret politics has forced so many people to make HUGE sacrifices to stay out of gov schools.
they still must pay for gov schools! alternate choices represent significant sacrifice of both time and money.

it’s one of the greatest failures of contemporary politics: devastation of gov schools, and all that represents.
AT HUGE+EVER INCREASING COSTS TO TAXPAYERS.

“Love it or leave it.” (leave, but, continue to pay.)

it’s a big deal.

[Ken]

Someone who simply decides that their beliefs are incompatible with the duties of the job and just resigns isn't going to suffer those consequences.

Do you believe this is best for the parents, students and teachers?

ie. do you think that any teacher who does not believe that they can, in good faith, use a student's desired delusional pronouns should resign for the good of all?

Honestly, I think that is if a teacher is so uptight (and yes, that is exactly what I would call it) that they can't accommodate kids, their parents, and school district policy then they probably aren't cut out for the job. I have seen some very uptight teachers who can't seem to abide much of what happens in public schools. They wear themselves to an absolute frazzle every week battling over every single issue. Constantly annoyed by how students dress, the music they listen to, the makeup they wear, the slang they use. Enforcing every last letter of the student dress code, even on students in the hallways who aren't their students. They are the same teachers who have a constant and endless stream of complaints about students and administrators and various policies every time you run into them in the faculty prep room. And come Friday afternoon they look so frazzled and exhausted that you would think they have been working in a war zone. If you can't relax and just enjoy working with kids as they come to you then it must be a miserable job and probably not the right one for you. And that is just a general comment, not one about religion.

As for this specific issue. I don't think it is any different from any other conservative religious belief that might be inconsistent with what happens in schools and the wider society. I'm sure there are a few conservative teachers who greatly disapprove of girls who wear jeans in school instead of skirts or dresses. And who even believe this is un-Biblical. And that girls who wear "boys" clothes are violating "God's law" and that their souls are in jeopardy. And that it is their religious duty to disapprove and voice their disapproval. But those attitudes have no place in the public schools either. Society has moved on and it is up to parents and school boards to establish dress policies for schools, and not the job of individual teachers who might disagree.

And it is just like the issue of corporal punishment. I'm sure there are some conservative teachers who have deeply-held faith based belief in corporal punishment and who think it is God's instruction for raising children. And who believe that as guardians of children it is their Christian duty to spank the children placed in their care when the misbehave. Despite the fact that they live in a state or work in a school district that has strictly forbidden corporal punishment. A teacher who disobeyed this directive would most certainly be disciplined and likely fired if they did not stop. Parents and school administrators would potentially view this as physical abuse even if the teacher believed it was their Christian duty. And it is frankly not the role or job of the teacher to substitute their judgement for that of the parents, school administration, school district, and state.

Refusing to accommodate LGBT students in the classroom is not that different. If the parents, school and district administration, and even the state are supportive of transgender students then it is not the role or job of the teacher to substitute their judgement for that of the parents and school administration. And both parents and school administrators could interpret this sort of thing as emotionally abusive towards transgender students. Especially if it normalizes or invites abuse and bullying from other students. You might think it ridiculous to label this as emotional abuse. Just like you might think it ridiculous to label spanking as physical abuse. But within a school setting it is just not the job of the teacher to make that call.

You might be surprised to know that I'm not really any sort of LGBT advocate and I frankly think a lot of this pronoun business is annoying performative nonsense. And that a lot of kids are just playing around with gender identities because it is fashionable just like they experiment with all kinds of other identities and beliefs when they are young. Fashion trends, politics, music, etc. I just don't get into a moral panic about any of it and think it is mostly harmless. I have plenty of students who face actual real abuse and live in all kinds of dire circumstances from homelessness to abusive dysfunctional families. Those are the kids I save my energy and worry for. I am frankly utterly unconcerned about the occasional boy who decides to wear makeup, or the occasional girl who uses them/they pronouns but are otherwise ordinary middle class kids. They are mostly just experimenting with their identity just like the kid in cowboy boots and a confederate flag hat. Or the girl in high-heels and stockings and black lipstick. I welcome them all into my classroom, do my best to keep the eye-rolling to myself, and do my best to treat them all equally and with respect.

[temporal1]

“Go along to get along,” is not Jesus’ message. It’s common.
The frequent result is that problems are not resolved, they worsen.

So many Christians and moral others have either left gov schools (voting with their feet) or, go along to get along, the result is what exists today. Regarding gov schools, the biggest problem of “voting with feet” is, unlike in the private sector, leaving does not equate to defunding. Thus, those remaining feel fully entitled to just continue on as they see fit (without benefit of those who left).

Politicians and their endless social engineering EXPERIMENTS. Never called experiments, always called “mandates” by force of the sword.

The problems aren’t confined to rowdy teens testing boundaries in schools who will eventually grow up and move on.

These (now getting to be INSANE gov mandates) are determining life on earth, affecting everyone.
Language, censorship, text and book publishing, employment, family and societal relationships, destruction of churches;
nothing too small or large to escape the reach of the sword.

i’m not saying this was intended, a grand plan, no. (that would imply intelligence i don’t believe exists.)

i believe this is all a ripple effect of rigid, intolerant removal of “all things Christian” from gov schools, resulting in loss of LOTS of valuable students and teachers - the bleeding has not stopped. many want to leave who feel stuck. removing God/Christianity should have been enacted as an EXPERIMENT, then given adequate time to determine outcomes.

the outcome is:
gov schools are harmed without total community involvement. students, teachers, admin. Christians+moral others.
a big loss for gov schools.

all these things politicians come up with should be defined as EXPERIMENTS, nothing more.
even better, remove meddling politicians from the DOE.

it’s true. in order to be paid, and get along with their beloved unions, teachers will do as they’re told. simple as that.
those willing to go along to get along. this is not excellence. (with an occasional trip to courts, as with the Kansas case.)

after all, it was just an ordinary atheist housewife in the Midwest with 3 boys who got offended one day, she took her case to the USSC, and changed schools ever since. if she could do it, why not anyone else??! (no matter, before she died, she changed her mind on it.) it became law of the land. like it or not, what she did lives on after her.

so, we will eventually see how this Kansas case unfolds. that’s “how it works” in the U.S.
laws are passed. laws are tested.

(the Kansas case started on Page 17.)

[temporal1]

Definition of butterfly effect
: a property of chaotic systems (such as the atmosphere) by which small changes in initial conditions can lead to large-scale and unpredictable variation in the future state of the system.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... y%20effect ...

God’s creation

[temporal1]

.. because .. haithabu ..

Uniformity within each tribe, yes, but that means nothing as long as people are free to switch tribes and it is understood that both tribes may coexist within the same society. Polarization, dangerous as it is, in itself is not totalitarian nor a precursor to totalitarianism.

But when there is a drive toward the control of discourse outside of the boundaries of the tribe, not just an attempt to expand a tribe's influence through debate but an attempt to gain a monopoly through the shutting down of debate,
to declare debate itself to be off limits - that is where totalitarianism begins.

haithabu -
btw thanks for the excellent florilegium of Orwell quotations.

[PetrChelcicky]

I found Ken's answer interesting because it implies that there ought to be "non-public" schools - or he seems at least to presuppose that there are "non-public" schools where those unassimilated conservative teachers could find a way to survive.

On the other hand, Ken might think: All those unassimilated conservative minority teachers, who don't share my majoritarian ideas about what's important or unimportant, be damned - I cant't be bothered by what happens to them! (In this case, let's speak with Ken again after the next turn of the wheel when he is part of an unassimilated minority.)

[temporal1]

I found Ken's answer interesting because it implies that there ought to be "non-public" schools - or he seems at least to presuppose that there are "non-public" schools where those unassimilated conservative teachers could find a way to survive.

On the other hand, Ken might think:
All those unassimilated conservative minority teachers, who don't share my majoritarian ideas about what's important or unimportant, be damned - I cant't be bothered by what happens to them!

(In this case, let's speak with Ken again after the next turn of the wheel when he is part of an unassimilated minority.)

Certainly.
Not to overlook, while the arrogant “majoritarian” (or politically controlling minorities) are 100% at ease with sending the “unassimilated” away, mind you, they KEEP all the taxpayer funds (thus, they can readily afford to send the pesky others away).

It’s not 100% b+w, regarding taxpayer funds, i’ve simplified. ^^

One major consideration is - the unassimilated do NOT want taxpayer funds! -
Because, tax dollars equates with “force of the sword.” If private schools/home schools are forced to align with questionable/unwanted gov policies - what’s the point?! Beware acceptance of gov funding. It’s NOT without strings.

A second consideration is - as long as everyone pays taxes to fund gov schools (in the U.S. system) everyone has a vested interest in those schools, whether their children attend or not. This is quite important. For one thing, in time, all children will interact in higher ed, the workplace, public markets, on the internet, etc. It’s important children are prepared to meet those challenges.

It’s important to the broader community that gov schools do the best possible. The broader taxpaying community has a say in this.
Often overlooked.

“Please go ahead and leave - keep sending your money!” (Not many can get away with that trick.)

[PetrChelcicky]

I think this is an extreme important subject, but it would need some more "structure".
For "structuring" it, let's separate the "ethical" question (how are we to treat each other?) from the "politico-legal" questions (how does the state (intentionally) treat his citizens, how does he protect his citizens from each other).

As for the legal question, let us concede that every equality law has a silently implied caveat. For instance the 14th amendment means in reality that all men are equally protected "if not ..". But it's just the "if not what" which tells and which the Courts have to decide.

And let's accept that education is a particular matter, because the teacher (a) teaches children in order to become well-adjusted grown-ups and therefore (b) needs a mixture of leniency (as friend of the children) and strictness (as representant of the "outer world"). For instance, if we pretend that every enterprise can and may regulate the speech of its workers, then a teacher ought to adjust his pupils to situations where their speech is heavily regulated.

[Ken]

I found Ken's answer interesting because it implies that there ought to be "non-public" schools - or he seems at least to presuppose that there are "non-public" schools where those unassimilated conservative teachers could find a way to survive.

On the other hand, Ken might think: All those unassimilated conservative minority teachers, who don't share my majoritarian ideas about what's important or unimportant, be damned - I cant't be bothered by what happens to them! (In this case, let's speak with Ken again after the next turn of the wheel when he is part of an unassimilated minority.)

I don't necessarily believe that there OUGHT to be public schools.

What I do believe to be true is that in the United States, PUBLIC education is not compulsory for either students or teachers. And that any individuals or groups are perfectly free to form their own schools around whatever belief system that they happen to have. Or around whatever educational philosophy that they happen to have. And, in fact homeschooling is also perfectly legal too. So we have a tremendously wide range of private school options available in this country from those organized around particular faiths (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Bahai, etc.) to those organized around specific educational philosophies or concentrations (STEM, Music/Arts, College prep, etc.). As well as large support networks for home schooling.

And it has nothing to do with "MY ideas. I don't agree with a lot of policies found in public education. I just happen to think that in a democracy (and public schools are democratically operated) they do have the right and authority to impose standards of conduct for both students and teachers. Just like private schools equally have the right to impose their own standards for both students and teachers that might be radically different from what is found in public schools.

[Ken]

One major consideration is - the unassimilated do NOT want taxpayer funds! -
Because, tax dollars equates with “force of the sword.” If private schools/home schools are forced to align with questionable/unwanted gov policies - what’s the point?! Beware acceptance of gov funding. It’s NOT without strings.

Not true. At least not for all. There are politically powerful voucher movements in many states that are backed by evangelical Christian organizations who seek to establish publicly funded voucher programs that would amount to public funding for private schools. And various other proposals for tax subsidies and such that would essentially amount to the same thing. Private schools are also generally tax exempt which in itself amounts to a public subsidy.

A second consideration is - as long as everyone pays taxes to fund gov schools (in the U.S. system) everyone has a vested interest in those schools, whether their children attend or not. This is quite important. For one thing, in time, all children will interact in higher ed, the workplace, public markets, on the internet, etc. It’s important children are prepared to meet those challenges.

It’s important to the broader community that gov schools do the best possible. The broader taxpaying community has a say in this.
Often overlooked.

Yes, that is why we have school board elections, local school bond elections, and elections for statewide offices related to education such as state commissioners of education, state boards of education, and so forth depending on the particular state. Every citizen does have a say in the management of the public schools.