Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[Josh]

Ken, if you keep moving the goalposts the way you are, you’re gonna strain your shoulders and back.

The original topic was if a teacher should be forced to participate in bizarre fantasies where people want to be called made up words like “xie”, “serself”, or (stranger yet) “it”. I feel Christian teachers have a lot of room to refuse to go along with such fantasies.

You seem to assert the Constitution was written to make sure gender-confused students can demand government school teachers call them by made up pronouns.

Can you point to any of the authors of the Constitution or bill of rights who would have agreed with this?

[temporal1]

The effect is to force Christians out of any public sphere. The question is why Ken thinks that’s a good thing.

Libs have little problem with Christianity as long as Christians conform to the world.
Several years ago, Hillary summed it up. (from memory, i think obama concurs.)
It’s evident, many churches don’t blink an eye at this.

2016 / Hillary, Soros and the political genocide of Christianity
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/ ... enocide-of

i’m just thankful hill’s idea to become a Methodist minister ended before it got anywhere.
her Methodist mentor, Rev. Bill Shillady, took the fall for plagiarism:

2017 / Hillary Clinton's pastor plagiarizes prayer published in new book
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/r ... 561331001/

[joey_the_ox]

Yes, I think teachers should follow the law and the policy directions of their district, and if they can't do so, they should find other employment. The vast majority of conservative Christian teachers find no problem doing this. It is only a small handful out of the millions of teachers in this country who find a conflict and file these sorts of lawsuits.

What if certain teachers are called to not follow an unjust law as a form of protest, and are willing to suffer the consequences for doing so? You seem to have this view of "law and policy directions" as dictates that must always be obeyed ("regardless of how much doing so conflicts with their Christian beliefs" as you said), no matter what their content is. Surely I don't need to repeat the obvious examples where your view fails.

[Ken]

Ken, if you keep moving the goalposts the way you are, you’re gonna strain your shoulders and back.

The original topic was if a teacher should be forced to participate in bizarre fantasies where people want to be called made up words like “xie”, “serself”, or (stranger yet) “it”. I feel Christian teachers have a lot of room to refuse to go along with such fantasies.

You seem to assert the Constitution was written to make sure gender-confused students can demand government school teachers call them by made up pronouns.

Can you point to any of the authors of the Constitution or bill of rights who would have agreed with this?

Sure. The 14th Amendment mandates equal protection under the law for all citizens whether they are straight or LGBT. The Supreme Court has agreed that the 14th Amendment applies to LGBT individuals. That isn't my say-so or belief. It is the actual law of the land. The authors of the 14th Amendment did not lay out any exceptions or loopholes to allow discrimination against LGBT people, much as you apparently wish that they did.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the state from imposing religious beliefs or standards on citizens. And they have reaffirmed this principle numerous times over the past decades. In the context of public schools, teachers are the state, or represent the state. And cannot use their position of authority to promote or implement their specific religious beliefs. Again, not my say-so. This is how the courts have repeatedly ruled.

The courts have also ruled numerous times and in numerous different contexts that employers have the right to regulate the speech and conduct of their employees on the job and when engaged in the performance of their duties. This is also uncontroversial.

In any event, this is all being decided in the courts so it doesn't really matter what you or I think anyway.

[Josh]

Ken, if you keep moving the goalposts the way you are, you’re gonna strain your shoulders and back.

The original topic was if a teacher should be forced to participate in bizarre fantasies where people want to be called made up words like “xie”, “serself”, or (stranger yet) “it”. I feel Christian teachers have a lot of room to refuse to go along with such fantasies.

You seem to assert the Constitution was written to make sure gender-confused students can demand government school teachers call them by made up pronouns.

Can you point to any of the authors of the Constitution or bill of rights who would have agreed with this?

Sure. The 14th Amendment mandates equal protection under the law for all citizens whether they are straight or LGBT. The Supreme Court has agreed that the 14th Amendment applies to LGBT individuals. That isn't my say-so or belief. It is the actual law of the land. The authors of the 14th Amendment did not lay out any exceptions or loopholes to allow discrimination against LGBT people, much as you apparently wish that they did.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the state from imposing religious beliefs or standards on citizens. And they have reaffirmed this principle numerous times over the past decades. In the context of public schools, teachers are the state, or represent the state. And cannot use their position of authority to promote or implement their specific religious beliefs. Again, not my say-so. This is how the courts have repeatedly ruled.

The courts have also ruled numerous times and in numerous different contexts that employers have the right to regulate the speech and conduct of their employees on the job and when engaged in the performance of their duties. This is also uncontroversial.

In any event, this is all being decided in the courts so it doesn't really matter what you or I think anyway.

The Supreme Court has not ruled that the 14th amendment means the rest of us are required to play along with fantasies that men have that they are women and to call them by made-up pronouns.

[Ken]

Ken, if you keep moving the goalposts the way you are, you’re gonna strain your shoulders and back.

The original topic was if a teacher should be forced to participate in bizarre fantasies where people want to be called made up words like “xie”, “serself”, or (stranger yet) “it”. I feel Christian teachers have a lot of room to refuse to go along with such fantasies.

You seem to assert the Constitution was written to make sure gender-confused students can demand government school teachers call them by made up pronouns.

Can you point to any of the authors of the Constitution or bill of rights who would have agreed with this?

Sure. The 14th Amendment mandates equal protection under the law for all citizens whether they are straight or LGBT. The Supreme Court has agreed that the 14th Amendment applies to LGBT individuals. That isn't my say-so or belief. It is the actual law of the land. The authors of the 14th Amendment did not lay out any exceptions or loopholes to allow discrimination against LGBT people, much as you apparently wish that they did.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the state from imposing religious beliefs or standards on citizens. And they have reaffirmed this principle numerous times over the past decades. In the context of public schools, teachers are the state, or represent the state. And cannot use their position of authority to promote or implement their specific religious beliefs. Again, not my say-so. This is how the courts have repeatedly ruled.

The courts have also ruled numerous times and in numerous different contexts that employers have the right to regulate the speech and conduct of their employees on the job and when engaged in the performance of their duties. This is also uncontroversial.

In any event, this is all being decided in the courts so it doesn't really matter what you or I think anyway.

The Supreme Court has not ruled that the 14th amendment means the rest of us are required to play along with fantasies that men have that they are women and to call them by made-up pronouns.

The Supreme Court has ruled that employers have the right to regulate both your speech and your conduct while on the job and engaged in your job duties. That is what is relevant here.

[Heirbyadoption]

Sure. The 14th Amendment mandates equal protection under the law for all citizens whether they are straight or LGBT. The Supreme Court has agreed that the 14th Amendment applies to LGBT individuals. That isn't my say-so or belief. It is the actual law of the land. The authors of the 14th Amendment did not lay out any exceptions or loopholes to allow discrimination against LGBT people, much as you apparently wish that they did.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the state from imposing religious beliefs or standards on citizens. And they have reaffirmed this principle numerous times over the past decades. In the context of public schools, teachers are the state, or represent the state. And cannot use their position of authority to promote or implement their specific religious beliefs. Again, not my say-so. This is how the courts have repeatedly ruled.

The courts have also ruled numerous times and in numerous different contexts that employers have the right to regulate the speech and conduct of their employees on the job and when engaged in the performance of their duties. This is also uncontroversial.

In any event, this is all being decided in the courts so it doesn't really matter what you or I think anyway.

The Supreme Court has not ruled that the 14th amendment means the rest of us are required to play along with fantasies that men have that they are women and to call them by made-up pronouns.

The Supreme Court has ruled that employers have the right to regulate both your speech and your conduct while on the job and engaged in your job duties. That is what is relevant here.

Sort of. As I read back through the last pages, what comes to mind is that, in a historic Christian context, Caesar (or at least his government) also demanded that Christians under him burn incense and/or proclaim Caesar is Lord... In an OT context, Nebuchadnezzar required that all men bow to his image. Etc. The fundamental issue in this discussion seems not solely about what the law or the Supreme Court or the school district specifically says, but more so about whether a Christian can conscientiously submit to what the law requires (depending on what one understands the law to say, such as whether employers have said right of speech/conduct regulation on the job)... Ergo, the question before us becomes whether it is fundamentally wrong for a Christian to submit to a law or regulation that they believe would place them in conflict with their higher allegiance and the Word of God, while still in the employ of said institutions. Which then leads to the question hinted at a few posts back of whether it is wrong for them to remain in the employ of an institution that requires them to submit/act against their conscience as a Christian? Might it be more expedient for them to serve elsewhere where said conflict is absent? Sure. But this really does seem to the fundamental question, regardless of what the law specifically says or requires of teachers. Agree/Disagree?

[temporal1]

Page 16

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.

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.

(i think) in this topic, 2 questions are being explored, 1) what does a Christian do? and, 2) what is allowed in U.S. human law?
Those 2 things might not always match. The second, of human construct, is subject to interpretation and change.

(i think) Chris addresses the first well.

- - - - - - -

The old, “if you don’t like it, LEAVE,” philosophy has a sore history in the U.S.
Odd to see it revitalized. Odd, but not at all surprising.

[Ken]

Yes, I think teachers should follow the law and the policy directions of their district, and if they can't do so, they should find other employment. The vast majority of conservative Christian teachers find no problem doing this. It is only a small handful out of the millions of teachers in this country who find a conflict and file these sorts of lawsuits.

What if certain teachers are called to not follow an unjust law as a form of protest, and are willing to suffer the consequences for doing so? You seem to have this view of "law and policy directions" as dictates that must always be obeyed ("regardless of how much doing so conflicts with their Christian beliefs" as you said), no matter what their content is. Surely I don't need to repeat the obvious examples where your view fails.

I'm not sure what "unjust law" you are referring to here. But the normal consequences for an employee for repeatedly violating school policy and directives is to get disciplined, suspended, and/or fired. So those would be the consequences to be "suffered" as you put it. Going down that road may have long-term consequences to one's employability in the future as a standard question on many employment applications is "have you ever been fired or dismissed" In fact in education there are usually very specific questions about that. It will go on your "permanent record" so to speak.

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.

Are names and pronouns a sufficiently important theological issue to martyr oneself over? For most people the answer is going to be "no" even if they happen to have religious beliefs on the subject. But for the few who do think so, go for it I guess. Write your "Letter from Birmingham Jail" over the use of pronouns and nick names on school attendance rosters.

[nett]

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?