Discover Top Posts Tagged with #what first amendment

The chilling effect isn’t measured by the people who push back. It’s measured by the silence.

In April, CBS lost a producer who couldn’t do honest journalism there anymore. By July, they were paying off the president and canceling the host who said so. By fall, they’d handed editorial control to a Trump donor and a Free Press founder. By winter, they were killing stories the administration didn’t want aired and publishing stories the administration did. And now they’re enforcing the government’s preferred censorship before the government has even formally imposed it. CBS isn’t being pressured anymore. They’ve internalized it.

A year of capitulation, from paying off the president to killing stories to blocking interviews.

Colbert can do this because he’s already dead Not literally. But professionally, at CBS, the show is over. It was over the moment they announced the cancellation last July. He’s got three months left. He said it himself on Monday, tucked inside a joke about Matlock: “Watch it or don’t watch it, I leave in May.” That’s what made Monday night possible. Colbert could defy his network’s lawyers on air, could say the thing they told him not to say, could draw Snoopy and call it James Talarico, because there’s nothing left for CBS to take from him. They already took it. What are they going to do, cancel it again? And the segment was good. It was genuinely funny and genuinely angry and it laid out the problem clearly enough that millions of people now understand what Brendan Carr is doing and how CBS is helping him do it. The YouTube interview got more attention than a normal Late Show booking ever would have. As an act of defiance, it worked. But Colbert is the exception. He can do this because he’s a dead man walking at his own network. What about everybody else? ... Colbert’s Monday night segment was a man with nothing left to lose doing something nobody with a future at the network would dare to do. That’s not a free press. That’s a hostage situation where one guy is about to get released and decided to mouth off on his way out the door. Good for him. I mean that. But he leaves in May. And then it’s just CBS.

#us politics #parker molloy #stephen colbert #what first amendment #united states of bullshit

I know it's more popular to view atheists as this massive group of people with all kinds of oppressive force, but the reality is that we're still denied opportunities in the current day because of religious discrimination.

There’s no good reason to force people to pledge an oath to God if they want to manage elections. It’s discriminatory and a betrayal of the very Constitution these officials claim to defend. No one should be forcing citizens to invoke a deity as a condition of public service.

The state’s insistence on poll workers saying "so help me God" has turned a civic service into a religious loyalty test

#us politics #hemant mehta #what first amendment

A documentary about the police raid of the Marion County Record is set to premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in early 2026, more than tw

#us politics #kansas #kansas reflector #what first amendment

It says a lot that the only person who behaved with integrity in this saga is the graduate instructor who gave Fulnecky detailed, thoughtful feedback. And that’s the only person who’s now being persecuted.

Fulnecky is a conservative who sees herself as the Riley Gaines of essay writing. She demands to fail upwards because the alternative is admitting you’re just not that good compared to your peers. She thinks she’s owed a top score even though she wasn’t talented enough to earn it. So she instinctively whined about her grade to—I shit you not—Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, the university president, the dean of her college, several reporters, and the anti-teachers’ union group now headed up by former State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters.

Samantha Fulnecky’s Bible-filled essay earned her a failing grade. After whining to Republican leaders, the University of Oklahoma is caving

The standard is already the same. If a Muslim or trans student turned in an essay this useless, then they, too, would receive (and deserve!) a failing grade. Deevers is falling for the argument that the world is biased against Christians when the reality says conservative Christians just whine whenever they can’t succeed on a neutral playing field. (Also, this is Oklahoma. You don’t get to complain about anti-Christian bias in Oklahoma.) Fellow Christian Nationalist State Sen. Shane Jett jumped in to argue that this was the fault of “DEI” and that the university’s president should be fired as a result of this student not being given a perfect score for her shitty paper.

#us politics #oklahoma #hemant mehta #what first amendment

The email suggests none of this was an accident or the result of ignorance. This was a deliberate attempt to shove religion into a public school system. The conservatives involved in this case know damn well how this will play out: Either the Colorado Department of Education will refuse to give the district the money it says it deserves because they won’t count the students at the religious school, in which case ADF will file a lawsuit over it… or the CDoE will give the district money, at which point a church/state separation group might sue. Either way, this is heading to court. That has always been part of the plan. The 30 children at Riverstone Academy are nothing more than pawns in a right-wing culture war battle. This is all a calculated effort by ideological actors to pry open the wall between church and state by using schoolchildren as leverage. They won’t stop appealing this case until they can get it in front of their allies on the Supreme Court. The quiet approval process, the omission of religious references from the paperwork, the involvement of a national legal organization eager for a test case—none of that is an accident. It is the blueprint. And in that blueprint, transparency and constitutional boundaries are treated as obstacles to be bypassed. Having failed in their numerous attempts to get Christianity promoted in schools—by hiring chaplains or forcing Ten Commandments posters on the walls—they want to litigate their way to precedent. Maybe the most damning thing about this story is what it says about everyone’s priorities. Children are being treated as subjects in a political experiment. The school’s religious mission is being hidden from those running the very system they expect will bankroll it. Riverstone Academy isn’t just violating church-state separation; it’s gambling with children’s education to advance a right-wing agenda that ultimately harms public school students.

Behind the scenes, a conservative legal group and district leaders crafted a challenge to church-state separation

#us politics #colorado #hemant mehta #what first amendment

In fact, over the past few decades, the IRS has only followed its own rules once. Just before the 1992 elections, a group called Branch Ministries ran full-page newspaper ads urging people not to vote for Bill Clinton. The IRS revoked the group’s tax-exempt status. There was a lawsuit. The IRS won. (The Congressional Research Service, a government-backed public policy research institute, said another church also lost its tax exemption in 2012… but no further details are available.)

But that’s it. 70 years of the Johnson Amendment… and maybe two ministries that were punished by the IRS for violating it.

So that’s where we were at before today. The Johnson Amendment was still on the books, but it was almost never enforced. And yet there was now a lawsuit pretending that the Johnson Amendment was hindering the supposed free speech rights of Christians. The complaint argued that churches were forced into their 501(c)(3) status and were therefore “automatically silenced” by the government. For example, they said the plaintiffs wanted to speak out about the candidates’ positions—which they’re already legally allowed to do!—but they were too scared to do so because they feared the Johnson Amendment, as if their ignorance was a reason to strike down the rule. (They “engaged in self-censorship,” they wrote while the tiniest violin played in the background.) ... This lawsuit should have failed for a number of reasons . First of all, the people who wanted to see the Johnson Amendment enforced wanted it applied across the board, not to benefit one side or the other. It’s not like church/state separation groups were totally fine with it if a historically Black church endorsed a Democratic candidate. We want it applied universally and think the IRS should be funded to the point where it can investigate all these allegations. The cherry-picked examples of unenforced violations were also laughable. It’s true that there are examples of churches endorsing Democrats, but there are so many more examples of white evangelical churches endorsing Republicans, and this lawsuit seemed unconcerned about that pesky little fact. How could anyone fail to call out right-wing churches for the same behavior while arguing, with a straight face, that the IRS was selectively enforcing its rule?

Pastors can now promote candidates without losing their tax exemptions—so long as it’s done through the "lens of religious faith"

So the game plan was pretty straight-forward. The Christians in this case wanted a Trump-appointed judge to strike down the Johnson Amendment. If there were appeals, they hoped this case would go all the way to the Supreme Court, where the right-wing super-majority could declare the Johnson Amendment unconstitutional and turn churches across America into extensions of the Republican Party. But now, maybe they won’t have to do that at all. On Monday, Jonathan L. Blacker, a Justice Department lawyer representing the IRS, in an attempt to settle this case, argued that churches could freely endorse candidates without penalty. The agency didn’t consider that politicking. ... The order is extremely narrow, though. It would apply to houses of worship—almost all conservative Christian ones—but not to non-profits in general. That means a Southern Baptist church could tell its members to vote for a Republican candidate, but Planned Parenthood would still be prohibited from telling its members to vote for a Democratic one. That could be grounds for a larger lawsuit.

#us politics #hemant mehta #what first amendment #united states of bullshit

It’s also important because there are benefits to being associated with a religious group. Since religious beliefs must be accommodated, the same rationale that allows Christians in the military to gather for Bible study can be used by Humanists to meet up and talk about philosophy. ... Before 2014, there were a limited number of “faith codes” you could use to describe yourself. They included “Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Jewish, Buddhist, or one of more than 100 Christian denominations.” But non-religious soldiers could only choose from “atheist” or “no religious preference.” After 2014, the list was expanded to include “Humanist.” A hard-fought win that was years in the making! In 2017, the list was expanded again to include even more specific non-religious categories like “Heathen,” “Deism,” “No Preference,” and “No Religion.” Again, the goal was accuracy. There was finally an understanding that the spectrum of non-religious thought wasn’t as simple as saying “I’m not.” Much like there are many denominations of Christianity, each of which has meaning for people who belong to those groups, there are non-religious people who believe “Humanist” or “Deist” or “Agnostic” more accurately describes who they are and what they believe. That’s where we were at after 2017. The military has always treated faith like it’s a net positive for good soldiers but they were finally using language that was less overtly Christian. And they were finally more open to the diversity of thought in an increasingly non-religious country. But Hegseth is now blowing up that progress like it’s a harmless fishing boat in the Caribbean.

The Defense Secretary slashed the military's religious categories from 200+ to 31, making countless service members effectively invisible

He said he would “streamline” the list of military religious affiliation codes. But how would that help chaplains “minister better to the flock”? If anything, as I said earlier, having less specific information to work with would make their jobs harder. Republicans want to eliminate an expansion of religious codes that took over a decade to approve for the simple reason that they can’t handle complexity of thought. It’s stupidity for the sake of stupidity. ... This unnecessary change is all the more infuriating because it solves a problem that doesn’t exist while creating a bunch of new ones. No service members were harmed because the military allowed people to identify themselves accurately. No chaplain was overwhelmed because there were too many religious categories. If anything, the expanded list was a small but meaningful acknowledgment that the people serving this country come from a wide range of backgrounds and deserve to be treated accordingly.

#us politics #hemant mehta #united states of bullshit #god is the biggest bitch of them all #what first amendment

Maybe it's because I'm an asshole atheist, but I believe that, in general, there should not be religious exemptions from workplace duties. I would never be in favor of a blanket ban, because nuance and taking an individual approach is important, but career choice is just that - a choice.*

If you deeply "need" to go into a career that would regularly require you to omit doing part of the job or violate your religious beliefs, the second one should be the default position. I mean, ideally, you'd choose a different career, right? But if you refuse to do so, you don't get to make that everyone else's problem.

Marisol Arroyo-Castro’s lawsuit backfired as the court reaffirmed that public schools are not churches

*-and no, we're not talking about the employment folks are usually forced into. How often do you hear of a religious exemption issue with minimum-wage jobs?

#us politics #this is my brain on life #elders of the interwebs #elder queers #hemant mehta #what first amendment