Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Josh

Re: Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

Post by Josh »

Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:17 amEvery mall prohibits solicitation which means you can't proselytize inside the mall, hand out religious tracts and so forth. Otherwise malls would be full of proselytizers of every denomination from Mormons to Jehovah's Witness to Nation of Islam and a trip to the mall would mean running a gauntlet of people preaching and sticking religious tracts in your face.
Yes, religious concerns must not get in the way of proselytisation of endless consumption - the last time I was in MoA, there were ads everywhere encouraging me to do this or that thing. Many of them unhealthy.

But it’s so important to make sure we ban God.
0 x
Ken
Posts: 21863
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

Post by Ken »

Josh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:46 am
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:17 amEvery mall prohibits solicitation which means you can't proselytize inside the mall, hand out religious tracts and so forth. Otherwise malls would be full of proselytizers of every denomination from Mormons to Jehovah's Witness to Nation of Islam and a trip to the mall would mean running a gauntlet of people preaching and sticking religious tracts in your face.
Yes, religious concerns must not get in the way of proselytisation of endless consumption - the last time I was in MoA, there were ads everywhere encouraging me to do this or that thing. Many of them unhealthy.

But it’s so important to make sure we ban God.
Shrug....not my rules. I never go to malls.

You are free to build your own mall and run it however you want. You can make a completely pro-Christian business and sell nothing but pro-Christian messaging if you want. Plenty of such businesses exist.
Last edited by Ken on Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken
Posts: 21863
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

Post by Ken »

Robert wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:42 am
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:17 am From the video caption it is identified as Mall of America and they actually they do have a dress policy: https://www.mallofamerica.com/security This is the relevant language below. I guess if you squint hard you can maybe see how some might think it violates the policy against religious slurs since the back of his shirt has a black line through the famous COEXIST logo that is made out of the symbols of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and others. The back of his shirt literally has the Star of David, Islamic crescent, and Hindu Om symbol crossed out. But it requires some squinting to be offended I think. On the other hand their language of "may include but is not limited to" gives them plenty of wiggle room.

In my opinion, we are raising a nation of "Karens" who find offense at the drop of a hat, both on the left and the right. And I find it all increasingly tiresome. The recent Hamline University Mohammad picture scandal is an example of this that probably merits discussion here in this thread.
His freedom of speech(expression) and religion is being restricted to someone else's eyes. The question is does this really do harm to someone else. I think it does not. It may not feel comfortable to some, but it is not really causing harm like second hand smoke. He could press it if he chooses. This means I can restrict Muslim Hajabs in my place of business. They are offensive to me. I think if this went to court, it might have to go way up, it would be overturned, but the Mall knows it is not worth anyone's trouble so they use the policy as they see fit.
It will not go to court under First Amendment freedom of speech because he is on private property and they can make whatever rule they want regarding speech on their private property, as can you. Freedom of speech does not apply since it is not the government regulating speech. Women who wear a hijab are not doing so to make speech, they are doing so because of religion.

The hijab would fall under freedom of religion not freedom of speech. I suppose this guy could go to court and make the claim that his religion requires that he wear that yellow t-shirt and that it is comparable to a Muslim woman wearing a hijab. That would be an interesting argument to hear. He would have to make the argument that wearing a pro-Jesus yellow t-shirt is part of his religion. And that prohibiting it discriminates against him as a Christian. The mall would probably argue that it is not the pro-Jesus message but the anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, and anti-Hindu message on his shirt that is offensive and just say that part needs to be removed. And that he is free to wear a pro-Jesus shirt, just not an anti Jewish/Muslim/Hindu shirt. And so he would be forced to argue that his religion requires him to wear anti Jewish/Muslim/Hindu messaging. And to deny him the ability to do that violates his religious rights. Which I think would be a tough argument to make in court.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh

Re: Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

Post by Josh »

Interesting case Ken makes.

#1. No right to practice the Christian religion by wearing a shirt with a gospel message. (And by the way, Jesus said he is the only way and that all other religions are false.)

#2. But every right to practice the Muslim religion by wearing special Muslim garb.
0 x
Ken
Posts: 21863
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

Post by Ken »

Josh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:05 am Interesting case Ken makes.

#1. No right to practice the Christian religion by wearing a shirt with a gospel message. (And by the way, Jesus said he is the only way and that all other religions are false.)

#2. But every right to practice the Muslim religion by wearing special Muslim garb.
It isn't my case. I'm just pointing out that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two separate rights.

If this guy wants to go to court and claim that his religious freedom is violated if he can't wear a t-shirt with Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu symbols crossed out he is free do do so. It would be interesting to hear that argument.

If I was running that mall I would personally have left him alone unless he was being a nuisance. So I'm not defending the mall in the slightest. I avoid malls because I dislike that sort of micromanagement and prefer public spaces where people can wear whatever shirts they want. I was just giving the opinion that they are probably on solid legal grounds.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 12078
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

Post by Robert »

Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:49 am It isn't my case. I'm just pointing out that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two separate rights.
I see them tied together. So did the Founders. This is why they are in the same Amendment. It is about voice and expression. We are free to express our views, politics, and religion. This is not freedom of thought, but outward expression. It may be a private mall, but it is a public place, just as the cake maker was who did not want to make a gay themed cake.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Ken
Posts: 21863
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

Post by Ken »

Robert wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:56 am
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:49 am It isn't my case. I'm just pointing out that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two separate rights.
I see them tied together. So did the Founders. This is why they are in the same Amendment. It is about voice and expression. We are free to express our views, politics, and religion. This is not freedom of thought, but outward expression. It may be a private mall, but it is a public place, just as the cake maker was who did not want to make a gay themed cake.
They may sometimes overlap but they are not the same. For example, Amish don’t pay into Social Security. That is purely about freedom of religion, not freedom of speech. And nearly all first amendment freedom of speech cases have nothing to do with religion. They are about things like whether political campaign donations are a form of protected speech (Citizen’s United).

This guy could challenge Mall of America on the First Amendment right to freedom of speech or on the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. But they would be separate legal arguments citing separate legal precedents and standards.

I’m not the one who thinks he should have been censored. I personally think the mall should have left him alone if he wasn’t otherwise making a nuisance of himself. I’m just commenting that since it is private property and not a public street it looks like the mall was on solid grounds to ask him to leave. That is one reason among many that I don’t really like malls.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
ohio jones

Re: Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

Post by ohio jones »

Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 12:26 pm
Robert wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:56 am
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:49 am It isn't my case. I'm just pointing out that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two separate rights.
I see them tied together. So did the Founders. This is why they are in the same Amendment. It is about voice and expression. We are free to express our views, politics, and religion. This is not freedom of thought, but outward expression. It may be a private mall, but it is a public place, just as the cake maker was who did not want to make a gay themed cake.
They may sometimes overlap but they are not the same. For example, Amish don’t pay into Social Security. That is purely about freedom of religion, not freedom of speech. And nearly all first amendment freedom of speech cases have nothing to do with religion. They are about things like whether political campaign donations are a form of protected speech (Citizen’s United).
Politics is a religion, though.
0 x
Ken
Posts: 21863
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

Post by Ken »

Here is an interesting First Amendment case in which freedom of religion and freedom of expression are in direct conflict. I'm wondering what people here think of Hamline University's decision to fire this professor. I have my own opinions, but I am curious to hear what others think before laying them out. I'm posting this NYT link as a shared article so it should be viewable to all. If not I'm posting an excerpt and this incident was heavily covered in the media last week so you can google up other news articles.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/h ... =share-url
A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job

After an outcry over the art history class by Muslim students, Hamline University officials said the incident was Islamophobic. But many scholars say the work is a masterpiece.


Erika López Prater, an adjunct professor at Hamline University, said she knew many Muslims have deeply held religious beliefs that prohibit depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. So last semester for a global art history class, she took many precautions before showing a 14th-century painting of Islam’s founder.

In the syllabus, she warned that images of holy figures, including the Prophet Muhammad and the Buddha, would be shown in the course. She asked students to contact her with any concerns, and she said no one did.

In class, she prepped students, telling them that in a few minutes, the painting would be displayed, in case anyone wanted to leave.

Then Dr. López Prater showed the image — and lost her teaching gig.

Officials at Hamline, a small, private university in St. Paul, Minn., with about 1,800 undergraduates, had tried to douse what they feared would become a runaway fire. Instead they ended up with what they had tried to avoid: a national controversy, which pitted advocates of academic liberty and free speech against Muslims who believe that showing the image of Prophet Muhammad is always sacrilegious.

After Dr. López Prater showed the image, a senior in the class complained to the administration. Other Muslim students, not in the course, supported the student, saying the class was an attack on their religion. They demanded that officials take action.

Officials told Dr. López Prater that her services next semester were no longer needed. In emails to students and faculty, they said that the incident was clearly Islamophobic. Hamline’s president, Fayneese S. Miller, co-signed an email that said respect for the Muslim students “should have superseded academic freedom.” At a town hall, an invited Muslim speaker compared showing the images to teaching that Hitler was good.

Free speech supporters started their own campaign. An Islamic art historian wrote an essay defending Dr. López Prater and started a petition demanding the university’s board investigate the matter. It had more than 2,800 signatures. Free speech groups and publications issued blistering critiques; PEN America called it “one of the most egregious violations of academic freedom in recent memory.” And Muslims themselves debated whether the action was Islamophobic.

Arguments over academic freedom have been fought on campuses for years, but they can be especially fraught at small private colleges like Hamline, which are facing shrinking enrollment and growing financial pressures. To attract applicants, many of these colleges have diversified their curriculums and tried to be more welcoming to students who have been historically shut out of higher education.

Meanwhile, professors everywhere often face pushback for their academic decisions from activist students or conservative lawmakers.

Dr. López Prater’s situation was especially precarious. She is an adjunct, one of higher education’s underclass of teachers, working for little pay and receiving few of the workplace protections enjoyed by tenured faculty members.

University officials and administrators all declined interviews. But Dr. Miller, the school’s president, defended the decision in a statement.

“To look upon an image of the Prophet Muhammad, for many Muslims, is against their faith,” Dr. Miller’s statement said, adding, “It was important that our Muslim students, as well as all other students, feel safe, supported and respected both in and out of our classrooms.”
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
barnhart
Posts: 7730
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:59 pm
Location: Brooklyn
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

Post by barnhart »

Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 12:26 pm ... I’m just commenting that since it is private property and not a public street it looks like the mall was on solid grounds to ask him to leave. That is one reason among many that I don’t really like malls.
Solid opinion. They are private spaces masquerading as a public space. The initial design was an American attempt to capture the essence of the walk oriented shopping district the was central in so many antique European cities. The first iterations included things like grocery and medical offices.

In some sense they are not that different from your local Walmart, try singing or holding signs there are see how it works out.
0 x
Post Reply