Trump Thinks Free Speech Is For The Right - Others Must Be Punished For It

 

Right-wingers have been whining about censorship since Trump began his lies in his first campaign. They didn't like him being called out on his untruths. They claimed he was covered by the free speech provision of the Constitution's First Amendment. They were right. The hateful and untrue things Trump said were protected speech.

But it seems that their belief in free speech is limited only to those they agree with - those expounding right-wing ideas. 

Since Charlie Kirk's death, they have been trying to make him a martyr. And they are very upset that many on the left (and in the center) have been pointing out that Kirk was not really a good person. He supported racist, homophobic, and misogynistics views - and even said that the deaths of innocent citizens was OK to protect the right to own a gun. 

Trump, AG Bondi, and many others on the right now want to punish those who disparage the memory of Kirk (even though much of it is just using Kirk's own words). They call it hate speech. AG Bondi said anyone using hate speech (saying bad things about Kirk) would be "gone after" by the law.

"Hate speech" and offensive speech are protected by the Constitution. That's been decided by the Supreme Court. Even real hate groups (like the KKK) get to say whatever they want as long as they don't specifically instruct someone to commit a crime. And you don't get to ban or censor speech just because it offends you.

I am personally offended by many things right-wingers (including Trump and his cabinet) routinely say. But as wrong as their statements might be, and as offensive as I find it, I know it is protected speech. 

Free speech is essential to the survival of a democracy like ours. If you ban or censor speech that you don't like, you put a knife in the heart of democracy. You don't have to like the speech of others, and you have the right to vigorously oppose it - but you don't have the right to censor or punish it.

Censoring or punishing speech (no matter how offensive) is a giant step toward an authoritarian state. But sadly, it seems that is what the MAGA right wants.

Government Is Violating First Amendment Rights

 A couple of days ago, police in New York arrested peaceful demonstrators opposing Israel genocidal war on Gaza. Their only "crime" was sitting up tents with pro-Gaza signs. Yesterday, the Austin police did the same. They arrested over 50 people for demonstrating on the University of Texas campus  in support of Gaza. Other cities have also arrested peaceful demonstrators.

These demonstrators were not rioting or threatening. They were simply trying to make their views known on a political situation. Isn't that guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? The Constitution guarantees both free speech and the right to peacefully assemble. The arrests are a governmental denial of both of these rights.

Sadly, members of Congress are supporting this behavior (members of both parties). Their excuse is the claim they are fighting antisemitism. There are two things wrong with that argument.

First, opposing the actions of the government of Israel is not antisemitism. Real antisemitism is the threatening or intimidation of a person simply for being Jewish. It can be, and is, being fought. But these demonstrations are opposing the actions of a government and does not involve an attack on the people of the country. We don't see opposing the actions of the Russian government makes a person anti-Russian, or opposing the actions of the Chinese or North Korean government makes a person anti-Chinese or anti-Korean.

Second, even if a person or movement is anti-semitic, as long as they are not attacking or threatening a Jewish person, it should not be stopped by the government. It is offensive, but free speech often is. Our government allows racial hate speech from Ku Klux Klars and white militias, it allows anti homosexual and misogynist speech from evangelicals and others. Those are also offensive, but protected by the free speech part of the Constitution. 

We are getting into dangerous territory when federal, state, or local governments act to stifle speech or the right to peacefully assemble. When it happens, it puts our democracy in danger. If one type of speech and assembly can be outlawed, then so can others.It is important that even offensive speech is protected. Citizens can oppose such offensive speech, but the government must never do so. 

SCOTUS - Religious Freedom Or Christian Superiority?

(Photo is by Sarah Silbiger in The New York Times.)

The Constitution of the United States, in its First Amendment, guarantees freedom of religion. It has been taken to mean that the government (which our Founding Fathers said was secular) should not favor one religion over any other religion, or demand a citizen adhere to any religion.

But that has not been the case in the past. It is fairly commonplace in this country for religious displays (Ten Commandments, Christmas displays, etc.) to be placed on government property with the blessings of that government -- in spite of the fact that such displays clearly favors one religion (christianity) over others, giving at least the appearance that christianity is the government-favored religion.

A case was argued before the Supreme Court last week that involved this very phenomenon -- the placing of christian symbols on government property. The case involves a 40-foot cross placed on government property by the American Legion that purports to honor World War I soldiers (see picture above). It is clearly a christian symbol, even though not all those soldiers were christian.

Does that cross violate the United States Constitution? I believe it does. We'll find out this summer what the Supreme Court thinks. Sadly, I expect they will allow the cross to remain on government property -- making a hollow joke of the First Amendment's religious freedom clause.

Here is part of what the editorial board of The New York Times had to say:

This week’s hearing, in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, involved a 40-foot cross in Bladensburg, Md., that was erected 93 years ago to honor fallen World War I soldiers. The question before the court: Is Maryland in violation of the First Amendment because the memorial is on public property and maintained with public funds?

Over the years, the justices have tried to come up with rules to assess all kinds of religious emblems and practices carrying the government’s imprimatur — sectarian prayers in legislative sessions, war memorials, Ten Commandments and Christmas displays, and mottos on seals or currency.

Lower court judges are confused about how to apply the Supreme Court’s dictates in this area of the law, so more clarity from the high court — if not a definitive, bright-line rule — is in order.

Alas, such clarity doesn’t seem to be on the horizon. After Wednesday’s hearing, the court seems poised to allow the cross — which otherwise bears no religious inscriptions — to stay. But the justices don’t appear to be any closer to consensus on this issue than they’ve ever been.

“I mean, it is the foremost symbol of Christianity, isn’t it?” Justice Elena Kagan asked at Wednesday’s session. “It invokes the central theological claim of Christianity, that Jesus Christ, the son of God, died on the cross for humanity’s sins and that he rose from the dead. This is why Christians use crosses as a way to memorialize the dead.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, who in the past has wrestled with the Constitution’s religion clauses, pondered whether “history counts” when assessing a monument’s legality. Maybe older displays, erected when the nation wasn’t nearly as religiously diverse, should be allowed, he suggested. “We’re a different country,” Justice Breyer said. “We are a different country now, and there are 50 more different religions.”

The Trump administration, which isn’t a party in the case, has nonetheless weighed in, participating in oral arguments in support of the Maryland monument and other memorial crosses on federal property that could be similarly challenged. In the administration’s view, the Maryland cross is secular in context and not an endorsement of any particular faith, and only displays that “coerce” religious belief or adherence ought to be considered unconstitutional. Taking offense at a passive display is not enough.

Arlington National Cemetery provides a good example of the kind of nondiscrimination the government should be aiming for: Federal rules allow for a wide array of religious and nonreligious symbols on headstones. “That’s the way this sort of thing is being handled today in a pluralistic society in which ordinary people … are not at each other’s throats about religious divisions,” Justice Samuel Alito said of Arlington on Wednesday.

That’s fair enough. But with its recent rulings, the Supreme Court has only muddied the separation between church and state by taking seriously religious objections to contraception, civil rights laws and the allocation of public funds. It is hard to fathom the justices being nearly as accommodating with a publicly funded monument to atheism or a Wiccan pentagram. And last month, the court couldn’t even agree that a Muslim death-row prisoner from Alabama deserved the same rightsas Christians in his final moments.

However the justices resolve this the dispute, they would be wise to not sow more confusion in this area of the law and feed the perception that only certain religions and practices get a fair shake in public life.

The Real Meaning Of First Amendment Free Speech

Right-wing liar and conspiracy buff, Alex Jones, has been banned by several social media sites. This has some right-wingers screaming that his free speech rights are being violated. Some others on both the right and left have also made the same claim when social media thinks they have gone a bit too far and punished them.

They are all wrong. Their right to the free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution has NOT been violated. They misunderstand what that right guarantees.

The First Amendment is shown above. Read it. It does not say that any private business (such a media or social media) must allow you to say whatever odious or divisive thing you want to say. And it does not say you are protected from these private businesses taking action against you if you violate their standards. It also doesn't keep other people from attacking you for those views.

The free speech right protects only one thing. It says the Congress (government) cannot restrict your right to say or print what you want, and cannot punish you for doing that. That is ALL! As long as the government doesn't act to restrict your speech or punish you for it, your right to free speech has NOT been violated.

College Students See An Erosion Of 1st Amendment Rights

These charts are from the Gallup Poll. The survey was done between November 1st and December 10th (2017) of a random national sample of 3,014 students attending a four-year college in the U.S., and has a margin of error of 2 points. That sample is compared to a similar survey done in 2016.

Those students were asked in both years whether they thought our First Amendment rights (free speech, free press, free assembly, freedom to petition government, and freedom of religion) were secure or not. The charts show the percentage believing those rights were secure.

Note that, except for Republicans, the college students had a drop from 2016 to 2017 in the belief that those rights were secure -- and that drop was evident for all five of the freedoms. In other words, more students saw those rights as eroding in 2017 than saw that in 2016.

This is understandable. We have an occupant of the White House right now that does not respect the First Amendment rights. He has attacked anyone who would speak or demonstrate against him (whether in the press or as an individual or group), and his pandering to christian evangelicals has weakened the religious rights of those in another religion (or without religion).

For Trump, rights are only reserved for those who agree with him.

Some Facts About Muslims In The United States

There is a movement in this country to demonize muslims, led by the Republican in the White House (and many in his political party). That is clearly an un-American movement. Our Founding Fathers made it clear that they were trying to establish a secular democracy -- one that would allow all religions to flourish (and allow citizens to choose to have no religion at all). They thought this was so important that they included it in the First Amendment to our Constitution.

There are currently about 3.35 million muslims in the United States, and that figure is only going to grow in the future. They are good citizens, and love this country as much as any non-muslims. Just as racism, misogyny, and homophobic are evils that this country must get rid of, so is the bigotry against muslims (and other non-christians).

I found the charts above from the Pew Research Center interesting, and thought you might also.

The Trump Administration Threatens To Use Justice Department To Suppress Our Free Press

Our Founding Fathers knew that the representative democracy they created could not be sustained unless the people knew the truth, and they understood that could only be accomplished with a free and unfettered press. They thought this was so important that they included it in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Trump administration doesn't agree. Trump has repeatedly attacked the press through lies and propaganda. He thinks the press should only report what he wants them to report. Now the Trump administration is going further, as Attorney General Sessions is threatening to use the power of the Justice Department to suppress our free press. This is a dark time for truth and democracy.

This is what Dan Rather had to say about this new threat:

With all due respect, Mr. President and Attorney General Sessions, it appears you can't handle the truth. 

I understand that the press has been a mighty check on the lies, inconsistencies, and cynical ploys that have been coming out of this White House. I understand that it has led to public outcry and a wide ranging criminal investigation by a Special Counsel. I understand that much of this reporting has been based on leaks and unnamed sources, from inside the Administration and from especially the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The exercise of a free and independent press has been the exact bulwark against a government in need of accountability - just as our Founding Fathers envisioned. I shudder to think where we would be without it today. 

So the news that the Justice Department is devoting significant resources to tracking down leaks and changing the rules to target the press is a chilling development. There are certainly times when an issue of great national security should not be shared with the public. And most of the journalism organizations I have known or been a part of take that responsibility very seriously. There are some cases where prosecuting leakers may - may - be warranted. But that is not what is going on here. The goal is very clear. The President has complained bitterly of leaks because he doesn't want to be questioned, even when he has been caught in lie after lie. 

“We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited,” Mr. Sessions said. “They cannot place lives at risk with impunity.” That is true. So the question is, what lives have been put at risk with all this reporting? And with impunity? Please save us the disingenuousness. 

The free press is performing exactly as it needs to. And the proof of that is how seriously those who wish their actions remain undetectable consider the press to be their enemy. 

Most reporters I have known take a naked threat such as this as further inspiration to dig even harder to expose the truth. News, as I have said, is what the powerful want to keep hidden.

Trump's Attacks On The Media Endangers Our Democracy

(Image of the First Amendment is from the website of Michael Owens.)

Our Founding Fathers understood the value of a free and independent press. They thought it was necessary to the continuation of our representative democracy -- so necessary that it was prominently placed in the First Amendment of our Constitution.

And to our good fortune, our modern presidents have understood this. They may have disagreed with some things the press reported, but they never attacked the press as an institution, or made personal attacks and threats against individual journalists.

Donald Trump is different. He started his attacks on the press during his campaign, and those attacks have only increased since he took office -- both against the media in general and against individual journalists. Trump has sought to destroy the reputation of the press in the eyes of the American people, calling their stories about him "fake news" -- and sadly, too many in his cult of personality are accepting that as truth.

Trump doesn't understand that if the public's faith in the independence and fairness of the press is undermined then our democracy is also undermined. How can a democracy survive if the people don't know what their government is doing (or how government actions will affect them)?

I am left to wonder if Trump even cares about the survival of our democracy. Does his narcissistic personality demand a cowered press? Does he want the ability of a king or dictator to do whatever he wants -- without a free press to report it? That's what it looks like. It seems that he is more concerned with his own narcissistic needs than he is with preserving and defending our democratic way of life.

Trump's attacks on the media are not amusing or inconsequential. They are dangerous -- and they should be treated that way. The survival of our democracy demands it.

You Have A Constitutional Right To Record The Police

(This cartoon image is by Clay Bennett in The Christian Science Monitor.)

The following was written by Khyla D. Craine (NAACP Assistant General Counsel), and is from the website of the NAACP. I repost it here because I think everyone should know their rights.

The question about our right to film and take pictures of police officers in the line of duty has resurfaced in the aftermath of the Walter Scott’s killing in North Charleston, South Carolina.  The answer according to multiple courts across the country is yes.  Federal Courts have continuously held that the First Amendment protects our right to take pictures and/or digitally record police officers engaging in their official duties.  See Smith v. Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995); and Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F. Supp. 2d 534, 542 (E.D. Pa. 2005).  As with all protected speech, the government can place reasonable restrictions on this right, but cannot ban the right entirely—or arrest a person who complies with the restrictions, if any exist in the first place.  

If you are in a public space—such as on the sidewalks, streets and locations of public protests— or any other place where you have the legal right to be, including the common areas of private businesses, then you have the right to film and/or take pictures of the incident.  This right is limited in so far as you are not interfering with the officer performing their duties or placing the officer or public in danger.  (You should check your local police or governmental rules for their policy, if one exists). 

More importantly, the officer and/or the government at large, does not have the right to threaten, harass, or otherwise prevent you from exercising this right.  If a reasonable request to leave the area due to a potential harm is made by the officer, you should comply in manner that would eliminate the threat.  Your right to film/record an officer does not allow you to break the law in an effort to capture the images—including, for example, trespassing on another’s property.

We have an incredible power in the palm of our hands to help hold all of our public officials accountable, including the police. 

America Is Becoming More Secular And More Diverse

These maps are all from the Washington Post, and they reflect the results of a new Public Religion Research Institute survey.

Our Founding Fathers were emphatic in their belief that they were creating a secular nation -- a fact verified by the 1791 treaty unanimously ratified by the Senate and signed by the president (and which put into writing the fact that the United States is a secular nation). Their intention was to make the U.S. a country where all people had the freedom to practice any religion, or no religion at all -- so they gave us the First Amendment to our Constitution.

This study shows that we are now finally becoming a truly secular nation. The study said that their are now 22% of the U.S. population without any religious affiliation. That is a record number, and it is still growing for the "nones" (composed of atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and those who just don't care for religion). That's nearly a quarter of the population. The map above shows the percentage of those "nones" in every state.

And the charts below show another encouraging trend. Non-christian religious people are beginning to be spread across this nation. That is a very good thing also, because it shows we are also becoming a religiously diverse nation -- and that will help us to defend the religious freedom guarantee of the Constitution's First Amendment.

A Troubling Poll About Republican Beliefs

If the results of this survey is close to right, and I believe it is, then the Republican base has a lot of very scary people in it. The survey is from Public Policy Polling, and was done between February 20th and 22nd of a random national sample of 316 Republican primary voters. It has a margin of error of 5.5 points.

It seems that science denial is rampant among Republicans. About 66% say they don't believe in global warming, and 49% say they don't believe in evolution -- even though more than 95% of scientists say both are true. It bothers me that these people think they can pick the parts of science they are willing to believe, and toss out the parts that don't necessarily agree with their religion.

But it is that third chart that bothers me most of all. A significant majority of Republicans (57%) are willing to toss out part of the First Amendment to our Constitution -- the part that guarantees religious freedom. They would like for our federal government to establish christianity as the official state religion -- which of course, would mean the government (and everyone else) would be free to discriminate against anyone who is not a christian. That is scary!

The poll also asked those Republicans who their presidential preference was, and the results are shown in the chart below. It shows that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has risen in the polls in the last few weeks. I hesitate to call him the leader though, since 3 out of 4 Republicans either want someone else or are unsure who they would want.

A Small, But Significant, Victory For Religious Freedom

There are two ways to fight religious bigotry and exclusivity in this country -- go to court to try and stop government involvement in religious activities, or make sure your religion (or anti-religious organization) gets equal access to the activity. There is some evidence that the latter may be the most effective these days.

Consider this example from Florida. In honor of Religious Freedom Day (January 16th), the Orange County public schools were going to allow a christian organization to pass out bibles. Instead of trying to stop this, the Satanic Temple and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (an atheist group), asked the school to allow them to also pass out some literature.

This put the school district between a rock and a hard place. They could not allow the christian organization to pass out bibles with also allowing the Satanic Temple and the FFRF to pass out literature. To do so would have violated the religious freedom provision in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution -- the provision that guarantees government must treat all religions (and anti-religious organizations) equally (and public schools are government institutions). Whatever the government does for one religion, it must do the same for all others (and for anti-religious organizations) -- regardless of how many or how few people believe in any particular religion.

What did the school district do? They cancelled the activity, and prohibited all the organizations from passing out any material (including the christian organization). They really had no choice (since many parents would probably have been incensed to have their children given satanic or atheist literature). This is a small, but I believe significant, victory for religious freedom in this country.

I'm sure there will be a lot of whining by christians claiming they have been denied their religious rights. But that is simply not true. They have the same rights as all other religions and anti-religious organization -- and that is exactly what our forefathers intended when they wrote the Constitution.

Christians can still worship as they please anywhere in this country, and they can pass out their bibles or other literature. They can do it in their churches or in religious schools. They can even set up a table and distribute it in their front yard, or walk the streets passing out their items, or offer these items on the internet, or buy an ad and offer it through the media. The number of ways they can distribute their religious materials is almost unlimited.

There is only one restriction. They cannot use the government or the law to pass out their materials or force others into participating in their religious rituals -- and that is a good thing. That is religious freedom.

Brzezinski Is Wrong - Satire Is Vital For A Democracy

I have often disagreed with Zbigniew Brzezinski (pictured), even though he served in a Democratic administration. But I have to say, his latest remarks (made on the MSNBC show Morning Joe) are not just conservative -- they are anti-democratic. Here is what he said:

"We have to take a look more closely at the nature of the so-called satire."


"I've not seen what I'm about to say, but I've been told by some people that some of the cartoons were absolutely appalling and directed at the prophet himself. Now, is that really humor or is that an insult designed to provoke?"


Brzezinski could not be more wrong. Satire is not just humor, but is intended to provoke people into thinking -- and even though it is often necessarily insulting and offensive, it is a vital component of free speech.

The men who wrote our Constitution understood the necessity of guaranteeing free speech to all Americans. They understood that no democracy could survive without the free flow of ideas, and that free flow of ideas could not happen without the guarantee of free speech. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech was not written to protect inoffensive speech. Inoffensive speech needs no protection. It was included to protect speech that some (or even many) might think is offensive (or insulting).

If you do not protect and allow offensive speech, then you do not have free speech. And if you don't truly have free speech, then you don't have a democracy. Instead, you have some kind of controlled oligarchy (or police state) where only government-approved speech is allowed.

Brzezinski has fallen into an old trap -- that we must limit speech so we can be safe. But that only trades our democracy for a false sense of safety and security. There are also violence and terrorist acts in countries that limit speech (even giant countries like China). Limiting speech does not insure safety -- it just kills democracy.

Satire is always offensive to some and insulting to many, but it makes people think -- and thinking is a very valuable commodity in any democracy.

Should Christian Symbols Be Alone On Public Property ?

Each year we hear the cry that there is a "war on christmas" -- and one reason is that christians want only there symbols (usually a nativity scene) to be displayed on government property. They think they are being discriminated against if other religions or schools of anti-religious thought are also allowed to display -- in spite of the fact that giving one religion, including christianity, preferential treatment by any government entity would be a violation of religious freedom (the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution).

Christians, especially evangelical christians, would like for you to believe a majority of Americans agree with them -- that they should be the only ones allowed to display their symbols on government property. Is that true? Not according to a survey done by the Pew Research Center. That survey was done between December 3rd and 7th of a random national sample of 1,507 adults, with a margin of error of 2.9 points. The margin of error for individual groups is slightly higher.

It shows that is a minority view. While 44% would be happy to have a christian-only display, about 48% think there should be no religious displays or displays allowed only if all points of view can be represented. If this truly is a "war on christmas" (a ludicrous idea), then the evangelicals are losing it.

Is An Apology Needed? - Absolutely Not!

Many people have been demonstrating against the police killings of far too many unarmed Black men (and children), and the police aren't happy about that (even though they know there is nothing they can do about it). But they are even more upset when it is a celebrity making the same statement as the demonstrators. Why? Because they think that celebrities (like star athletes) taking a stand on something can influence a lot of other people to do the same -- and they are probably right about that.

That's why the St. Louis Police Officer's Association (SLPOA) hit the roof when some St. Louis Rams players entered the stadium before a recent game with their arms up (imitating the pose of those demonstrating against the shooting of Michael Brown). The SLPOA demanded an apology from those players and the team. And they went even further by demanding the players be punished.

It's also why the union for Cleveland police officers is demanding an apology from Cleveland Browns wide receiver Andrew Hawkins. Hawkins entered the stadium wearing a t-shirt demanding justice for 12 year-old Tamir Rice and John Crawford, both of whom were killed by police -- Rice because he was holding a toy gun in a public park.

Do the St. Louis and Cleveland police officers deserve an apology from these celebrities (i.e., NFL players)? In a word, NO! And both of these police organizations should be deeply ashamed of themselves for even asking for an apology.

They seem to have forgotten that they represent government employees, and any citizen has the right to criticize his/her government if he/she feels they are not living up to the hig standards they have sworn to uphold (and are indeed paid to uphold). In fact, this right is so important that our Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution (in the First Amendment). If any of these officers can't stand to be criticized when some of their fellow officers fail to uphold those high standards, then they should find another line of work outside of government service.

If an apology is needed, it is not from either the demonstrators or the celebrities offering their opinion. It should come from the police, who sprang to the defense of those killing unarmed Blacks and refuse to institute policies that would prevent those incidents from happening in the future.

Too Many Americans Prefer Bible Over The Constitution

These two charts are made from a fairly recent Gallup Poll -- done between August 7th and 10th of a random national sample of 1,032 adults, and has a margin of error of 4 points.

I guess there is some good and some bad in this survey. It is good that the percentage of people who want to toss out the Constitution (at least the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion) so they can force their religion on defenseless school children has shrunk over the last 15 years -- from 70% in 1999 to 61% in 2014. That's a fairly significant drop.

But it's bad that slightly more than 6 out of every 10 Americans would be happy to violate the Constitution to use the government to spread their religion. I have no problem with anyone believing in a religion and worshipping as they please -- but they cross the line when they force others to submit to their religious rituals. Children have no choice in whether they attend school or not. It is a requirement -- and when people are required by the government to attend (or when people voluntarily attend any government function) they should not be subjected to the religious rituals of another person.

Why is it so hard for many Americans to understand that religious freedom includes the right to be free from religion -- and would be worthless without that right?

Air Force Now Says "God" Can Be Omitted From The Oath

Last Sunday I posted about the  U.S. Air Force refusing to let an airman re-enlist because he refused to include the words"So Help Me God" in his military oath. The Air Force had allowed those joining or re-enlisting to omit the words in the past, but changed that last October. They said those words must be in the oath, and claimed they were just coming into compliance with federal rules.

Of course their action violated an article of the Constitution saying no religious test could be required as a "qualification for any office or public trust", and also violated the freedom of religion portion of the First Amendment (which also guarantees the right to be free from religion). The American Humanist Association (AHA) wrote the Air Force on behalf of the atheist airman, and threatened to sue unless he was allowed to omit the four offensive words.

Now, only a week later, there is good news to report. The Air Force has reversed their decision, and will allow the airman (and anyone else) to omit the words from his military oath. They did so on orders from the Department of Defense, who said the airman must be allowed to re-enlist without having to include _So Help Me God" in his oath of service. Here is the press release from the Air Force on this matter (released on September 17th):

 The Air Force has instructed force support offices across the service to allow both enlisted members and officers to omit the words “So help me God” from enlistment and officer appointment oaths if an Airman chooses.

In response to concerns raised by Airmen, the Department of the Air Force requested an opinion from the Department of Defense General Counsel addressing the legal parameters of the oath. The resulting opinion concluded that an individual may strike or omit the words “So help me God” from an enlistment or appointment oath if preferred.

“We take any instance in which Airmen report concerns regarding religious freedom seriously,” said Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James. “We are making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen's rights are protected.”

The Air Force will be updating the instructions for both enlisted and commissioned Airmen to reflect these changes in the coming weeks, but the policy change is effective now. Airmen who choose to omit the words 'So help me God' from enlistment and officer appointment oaths may do so.

The language in previous instructions was based on an Air Force legal interpretation of 10 U.S.C. 502, 5 U.S.C. 3331 and Title 32, which contain the oaths of office.

The Air Force requested the review following a ceremony at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, in which an enlisted Airman struck out the words, “So help me God” on the Department of Defense Form 4 and did not include them in his verbal oath. The Airman's unit was unable to process his paperwork due to the guidance in Air Force Instruction 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, which prohibited any omissions. Now that the Department of Defense General Counsel has provided an opinion, the Airman’s enlistment paperwork will be processed to completion.

Why Should Atheists Have To Say "So Help Me God" In Their Oath To Join The United States Military ?

On August 25th, the United States Air Force refused to allow an airman to re-enlist. It had nothing to do with performance issues, because the Air Force wants the airman to re-enlist. The problem is the airman, when signing his re-enlistment oath, struck out the last four words of that oath. The four words in question are "So help me God". The airman is an atheist, and objected to having to swear to any kind of god -- especially since re-joining the military of a secular nation (and that's what this nation is, whether the religionists like it or not).

The crazy part is that when the atheist airman first joined the Air Force he was not required to include those four words in his oath. In the past, the Air Force has allowed the omitting of those four words from the oath. But that all changed on October 30th of last year, when the Air Force started requiring everyone taking the oath to include "So help me God" -- even if they are an atheist (or other non-believer).

The airman is still on duty at a Nevada Air Force base, because his enlistment is not over until November. But the Air Force says he will not be allowed to re-enlist without saying the complete oath (including the offensive four words), and if he does not comply he will be severed from military service.

Fortunately, the American Humanist Association (AHA) has gone to bat for the airman. They have written the Air Force, and warned them they are violating Article VI, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". I don't see how being a member of the military of this country wouldn't be considered a "public trust". The AHA has promised to file suit against the Air Force if the airman is not allowed to re-enlist without swearing to any god.

The YouGov Poll decided to find out what the American public thinks about this. Their survey was done on September 11th and 12th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of about 4 points. It seems that 75% (or 3 out of every 4 people) don't have a problem with atheists serving in the military. They are fine with atheists serving as cannon fodder for our corporate-owned government.

But a significant number of them want to force their own religion down the throats of the atheists who chose to serve -- about 34% of the general public, and 52%of Republicans and protestants would force atheists to take the oath with the words "So help me God" included. As god-believers, they don't realize how offensive those words can be to an atheist -- as offensive as they would consider it if they were required to swear to Allah, Vishnu, Odin, Ba'al, Mithras, Zeus, or any other god they don't believe in.

This is a secular nation, and always has been. The writers of our constitution knew that the best way to protect religious freedom was to keep government out of religion. Why then is this secular government requiring members of the military to pass a religious test by swearing to a god? Does that even make sense? Doesn't freedom of religion, guaranteed by the First Amendment, also protect the right to be free from religion?

Defending Press Freedom Against Police Repression

This post was written by Lee Rowland (who is an attorney with the ACLU's Speech, privacy, and Technology Project). It has appeared on Politico and on the ACLU's website. It is an important piece, and should be read by anyone who loves the First Amendment (especially the free speech and free press parts). Rowland writes:

Tear gas, rubber bullets, and assault weapons; free speech zones, gags, and press pens: This is the arsenal of the police state. Some of these tactics are physical. The other ones—all the more pernicious for their quiet coercion—impose a veil of silence over the actions of law enforcement. And each of these weapons has been unleashed on the people of Ferguson, Missouri, since the killing of Michael Brown.

In the first few nights of protest, Ferguson and St. Louis County police responded with a truly inconceivable show of force. Officers suited up in DHS-funded military hand-me-downs, outfitted with goggles, machine guns, sniper rifles, riot gear and gas masks. Distressing warzone-like images flickered into the public consciousness: photos of armed police cohorts pointing loaded automatic weapons at citizens with their hands in the air, women and children's faces streaming with tear gas and milk and white officers targeting black protesters like it's Selma circa 1964.

The message was clear: The public is the enemy. And as we the people started getting that message, Ferguson starting working harder to shoot the messengers.

Police repeatedly ordered protesters to turn off cameras and cell phones recording law enforcement. In response, the ACLU of Missouri had to go into court to seek an emergency agreement reminding the police that photographing them is a constitutionally protected right. Roving SWAT teams, perplexingly, raided a McDonald's and arrested two journalists engaged in the suspicious act of recharging their phones. Police aimed tear gas canisters directly at members of the press. A local news crew caught police riding up afterwards and disassembling another crew's media equipment.

Then came more systemic approaches to shutting down the speech of the public and the press. First: a nighttime curfew, applied to a broad area, whose details were obscure and seemingly applied ad hoc on the ground. Of the seven people arrested that night, three claim to have been on their own driveway. Of course, since journalists were subject to the curfew, we don't have a lot of objective facts about what happened in those wee hours.

That curfew only lasted a few days. It was then replaced by a "no standing" rule of dubious origin and authority, under which police threatened the arrest of anyone who stood still for more than 5 seconds, day or night. That also included press. CNN's Don Lemon was pushed along the sidewalk on live television, after being told by authorities to be exactly where he was. As he rightly said to his audience: "Imagine what they are doing to people when [sic] you don't see on national television, the people who don't have a voice like we do."

However, reporters were allowed to stand still—so long as they stayed in the "press pen," a designated space so far off from the action between the cops and the protesters that reporters who tried to witness anything of consequence were tear gassed. And the police didn't hesitate to show they meant business, arresting Getty photographer Scott Olson when he strayed. Like other reporters arrested, he too was promptly released without a report or charges. The point of these repeat press arrests appears to be preventing accountability, not protecting public safety.

And officials have insisted they're not stopping.

The ACLU again went into court on an emergency basis to challenge the 5-second rule. The court declined to shut it down, relying on the state attorney general's word that the city had set aside a designated "free speech zone," which provided ample opportunities for protest. But when ACLU of Missouri staff went to confirm that description after the hearing, the area was empty and off-limits to the public. As of yesterday, the state did ensure the area was open, but it's totally inadequate. Removed from the symbolic location of Michael Brown's death, isolated and sterile, the "free speech zone" is truly where free speech goes to die. And it means that the rest of Ferguson is officially a speech-free zone.

Each of these tactics is an unconstitutional restriction on the rights of speech and assembly in its own right. But this constantly changing whirlwind of restrictions further deepens the constitutional sinkhole Ferguson has become. When residents are bewildered as to when, where, and how they can gather and speak without risking arrest, that uncertainty itself casts a shadow of intimidation and self-censorship across the right of free speech. And of course, that uncertainty is often happening at the business end of a high-powered rifle.

So why, especially in light of our strong First Amendment traditions regularly upheld by the courts, has Ferguson discarded the First Amendment? Perhaps it's because the stakes are so high.

The more news and images we see streaming out of Ferguson, the more we have visceral evidence of the systemic problems of race, inequality, militarization and an us-versus-them cop mentality that are fueling continued protest and righteous outrage. And the more we know about Ferguson, the more concern we should have. Anastoundingly non-diverse police department. Financial incentives to over-enforce minor infractions. Charging a victim of police brutality for getting blood on officers' clothing. These aren't mere anecdotes. They are threads in the fabric of a truth we the people have a right – a duty – to reveal and unravel.

As our Supreme Court recognized in Roth v. United States, "The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people."

There is much political and social change desired by the people in Ferguson, and throughout our country. Not one more unarmed young black man should die at the hands of the police. Not one more local police force should get financial incentives to militarize and mobilize against its own citizens. Not one more photographer should risk arrest by doing her job. The iconic images coming out of Ferguson illustrate the urgency of change.

So we the people must give thanks. We give thanks to the journalists who have been zip-tied in the fight for transparency. We give thanks to the tweeters who crowdsource the eyes and ears of America. We give thanks to those on the streets of Ferguson who lift up their camera phones to bear witness to the truth in real time. Because they are the agents of the change we must all seek together.

Our words, our voices, and our pictures are the most devastating weapons of all to entrenched systems of injustice: systems that led to the death of Michael Brown and to the anger it spawned.

NOTE -- I don't know who took the above picture, but I found it on the blog of the wonderful Juanita Jean (owner of the world's most dangerous beauty salon).