Podcasts about rfra

In this week's episode, the Pope is laid to solemn multimillion dollar ceremony complete with commemorative coins, a federal court considers the merits of sincerely held acid tabs, and we'll show the conclave a bold way forward. --- To make a per episode donation at Patreon.com, click here: http://www.patreon.com/ScathingAtheist To buy our book, click here: https://www.amazon.com/Outbreak-Crisis-Religion-Ruined-Pandemic/dp/B08L2HSVS8/ If you see a news story you think we might be interested in, you can send it here: scathingnews@gmail.com To check out our sister show, The Skepticrat, click here: https://audioboom.com/channel/the-skepticrat To check out our sister show's hot friend, God Awful Movies, click here: https://audioboom.com/channel/god-awful-movies To check out our half-sister show, Citation Needed, click here: http://citationpod.com/ To check out our sister show's sister show, D and D minus, click here: https://danddminus.libsyn.com/ Report instances of harassment or abuse connected to this show to the Creator Accountability Network here: https://creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org/ --- Guest Links: To check out The Cycle: Confronting the Pain of Periods and PMDD (mentioned in the Farnsworth Quote), click here: https://www.amazon.com/Cycle-Confronting-Pain-Periods-PMDD/dp/1250882893 --- Headlines: All the weird shit they did at the pope's funeral: https://religionnews.com/2025/04/26/at-pope-francis-funeral-a-call-to-heed-his-appeals-for-peace-and-mercy-for-the-vulnerable/ 84-year-old man injured after falling from cross during crucifixion reenactment: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/west-virginia-crucifixion-fall-easter-b2737017.html https://www.wsaz.com/2025/04/21/man-84-critically-injured-after-falling-cross-during-crucifixion-reenactment/#:~:text=WESTON%2C%20W.Va https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/vandalia-community-christian-church-marks-20-years-of-good-friday-outdoor-drama-in-horner-w/article_30d6cd8d-9ef0-46fb-8f04-b3d34ea19248.html York Minster hosts controversial metal concert as threatened protests fail to materialise: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/25/york-minster-hosts-controversial-metal-concert-as-threatened-protests-fail-to-materialise COVID dot gov is batshit on stilts: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-replaces-covid-websites/ One Million Moms is mad that an ad says "daaaaaamp": ​​https://onemillionmoms.com/current-campaigns/urge-damprid-to-cancel-its-inappropriate-ad/ t sold LSD on dark web and claims a religious exemption based on RFRA: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/04/24/army-pilot-lsd-religion-kyle-riester/ --- This Week in Misogyny: Judge blocks worker protections for Catholic employers: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-blocks-worker-protections-abortion-fertility-care-catholic-120884316 Paula White-Cain reminds Christian women to submit to their husbands: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/paula-white-cain-wives-submit-husbands_n_680a6681e4b0d1cc4a5a80d8 Republican gubernatorial candidate proposes letting female immigrants stay if they marry incels: https://2paragraphs.com/2025/04/republican-governor-candidate-proposes-female-undocumented-immigrants-can-stay-if-they-marry-incels/

Every remaining state without a RFRA law should follow suit and codify religious freedom protections from state overreach. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

In this episode, Scot Turner and Buzz Brockway discuss the current legislative session in Georgia, focusing on the Reigns Act, the Promise Scholarship funding, and the ongoing debates surrounding school choice and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They express their anxieties about the budget negotiations and the political theatrics that have characterized this session, while also emphasizing the importance of legislative oversight and the implications of proposed bills on education and religious freedoms. In this conversation, Scot Turner and Buzz Brockway delve into the implications of the Pastor Protection Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Georgia, discussing its limitations and the ongoing debate surrounding anti-discrimination laws. They explore the societal pressures that prevent discrimination, the political fallout from recent legislative actions, and the controversy over taxpayer funding for gender transition surgeries for felons. The discussion also touches on the impact of tariffs on trade and the precedent set by presidential powers in declaring emergencies.

Host Tia Mitchell talks with Fred Smith Jr., a professor at Emory University School of Law, about the tensions between the Trump administration and the courts. Then, Greg Bluestein updates us from the Gold Dome on a long-debated religious liberty measure. Have a question or comment for the show? Call the 24-hour Politically Georgia Podcast Hotline at 770-810-5297. We'll play back your question and answer it during our next listener mailbag segment. Listen and subscribe to our podcast for free at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also tell your smart speaker to “play Politically Georgia podcast.”   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Peach Pundit, hosts Scot Turner and Buzz Brockway discuss a range of topics legislative updates on speed zone cameras, tort reform, the Promise Scholarship, and the implications of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They also explore the future of transportation with EVTOL technology and share insights from Scot's experience at the Georgia Supreme Court. The conversation emphasizes the importance of engagement with listeners and supporters in the political landscape of Georgia.

* Guest: Pete Sepp - President of National Tax Payers Union - (NTU) is the Voice of America's Taxpayers, mobilizing elected officials and citizens on behalf of tax relief and reform - NTU.org * NTU Suggests Reforms to House Energy and Commerce Privacy Bill. * Tell Your Senators: Taxpayers Need Relief Now - The Tax Relief for Families and Workers Act would benefit American taxpayers and stimulate economic investment. * Agriculture Committee Should Make Significant Changes to Farm Bill - Bryan Riley, NTU.com * NTU Urges “YES” on H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act - Nicholas Johns, NTU.org * Catholic Group Sues Biden Administration Over 'Blatant Violation of the First Amendment' - Jack Davis, WesternJournal.com * The Knights of Columbus are fighting the Biden administration so a Catholic Mass can be said over the honored dead on Memorial Day at Poplar Grove National Cemetery in Petersburg, Virginia. “The policy and the decision blocking the Knights of Columbus from continuing their long-standing religious tradition is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” John Moran, Partner at McGuireWoods, said in a statement. * The National Park Service is way out of line. This is the kind of unlawful discrimination and censorship RFRA and the First Amendment were enacted to prevent,” said Roger Byron, senior counsel at First Liberty. * We filed suit against the National Park Service. We'll be in court on Thursday. Please join us in praying for a quick and favorable resolution. * The motion notes that federal policy lumps religious services with demonstrations and bans on the grounds they could be disruptive, violating the atmosphere of a cemetery.

The intersection of abortion and religion often grabs headlines, and this episode of Respecting Religion looks at recent developments in two states: Arizona and Indiana. Amanda and Holly discuss an Indiana case that involves free exercise arguments under state law to support abortion, and they examine the impact of Arizona's 1864 law that criminalizes abortion. Both situations are resulting from the tremendous change in the law after the Dobbs decision in 2022, leading to some unexpected situations.    SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The Arizona situation Our next episode will be our 100th episode! It's your chance to ask Amanda and Holly anything – send in your questions by April 29 to RespectingReligion@BJConline.org. Amanda and Holly previously discussed the aftermath of the Dobbs decision in episode 4 of season 4, released in October 2022. The show was titled “A religious freedom right to an abortion?”  The New York Times has this helpful resource that shows the differences in the laws regarding abortion in states across the country.  Amanda and Holly mentioned this article for Vox written by Nicole Naera: The history of Arizona's Civil War-era abortion ban After we recorded this program, the Arizona House voted to repeal the 1864 law, and the Arizona Senate is expected to vote on it next week. Read more in this Washington Post article by Caroline Kitchener and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez.    Segment 2 (starting at 12:12): The Indiana litigation For a more in-depth discussion of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), check out episode 6 of season 5: RFRA at 30. Read the opinion from the Indiana Appeals Court and the concurrence at this link. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

An appeals court rules the state's near-total abortion ban likely violates RFRA protections, siding with a trial court. South Korean tech company SK Hynix to build its first U.S. semiconductor plant at Purdue Research Park in West Lafayette. Mike Braun's U.S. Senate campaign receives the second-largest fine in Senate campaign history over disclosure irregularities. 

Crossover Day |  "This is my story. This is my reality and my fear." Senator Jackson shares her comments on the latest RFRA bill (SB 180) while shedding light on legislation to be mindful of as we reach the second half of the legislative session.

Scot makes the case that DA Willis should be removed, before considering today's bombshell report. If Trump wins, MTG wants to be the Secretary of DHS Media continues its misleading coverage as RFRA passes Senate Judiciary Committee Maya Prabhu of the AJC Releases her best dressed tourney style bracket House retirement announcements have begun.

Shout out to Donovan Stewart and The Mission Church from co-host David Walls; Bills to support – Bill HB47 (Repr Steve Rawlings) to strengthen RFRA; Bill HB442 (Repr James Tipton) - regarding churches and taxation; HB304 (Rep Shane Baker's bill) – Parental Rights in Education; Go to www.kentuckyfamily.org/takeaction to express your thoughts on these bills or Legislative Message Line (800.372.7181). Share to inform and encourage others.

Attorneys for the state and a group of anonymous women argued over abortion and the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA before a panel of appeals court judges yesterday. Half the country is now in a slightly warmer hardiness zone than they were a decade ago. These zones show an average of the coldest temperature on the coldest night every year for the past 30 years. The Indiana Department of Education says too many third graders who fail a statewide reading test are advancing to fourth grade. The IDOE is working on a new data visualization tool that shows where students are struggling the most. An Indianapolis program the city says will help communities build their infrastructure dream projects has reopened. Want to go deeper on the stories you hear on WFYI News Now? Visit wfyi.org/news and follow us on social media to get comprehensive analysis and local news daily. Subscribe to WFYI News Now wherever you get your podcasts. Today's episode of WFYI News Now was produced by Darian Benson, Abriana Herron, Drew Daudelin and Kendall Antron with support from Sarah Neal-Estes.

Dr. Stephen Doran is the author of “To Die Well: A Catholic Neurosurgeon's Guide to the End of Life.” Chris Faddis reflects on 30 years of RFRA. Gail Buckley Barringer has our Bible verse of the week.

This year, we're celebrating 30 years of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy sponsored the bill and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. And today at First Liberty, we love the protections that RFRA is still providing for people of faith. For RFRA's anniversary, Kelly Shackelford joins us on this week's Live! to talk about the impact of this law on religious freedom. Kelly will share how this significant piece of legislation became law, discuss historic rulings that have come from it and update you on how RFRA continues to protect religious freedom today.

Thirty years ago today, President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. It was a monumental event in religious liberty law at the time, and it remains part of an even more complex legal landscape of religious exemptions today. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman look at the standard set by RFRA and discuss how the law has been used in cases dealing with issues ranging from sacramental drug use to application of health insurance regulations. They discuss the non-controversial applications of RFRA, too, and the search for win-win solutions to complicated situations that arise in a religiously pluralistic society.   SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The need for and passage of RFRA Learn more about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) on BJC's website: BJConline.org/RFRA Holly wrote a column on RFRA for Word&Way's “A Public Witness” newsletter, and you can read it here: Revisiting RFRA 30 years later Read the text of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act at this link. Amanda mentioned these two “high water mark” cases in the period before 1990: Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The 1990 Employment Division v. Smith is the case often known as the “peyote case.” We played audio from Justice Antonin Scalia reading the opinion of the Court from the bench, which you can listen to and read at this link. Watch the signing ceremony for RFRA on November 16, 1993, at this link on the YouTube channel of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. Holly mentioned this printed resource available on our website, produced for the 20th anniversary of RFRA.    Segment 2 (starting at 14:16): Twists and turns of RFRA over 30 years Amanda mentioned the 1997 case that struck down RFRA as applied to the states: City of Boerne v. Flores. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) has the same standard as RFRA, but it has not been the subject of so many controversies. Holly and Amanda mentioned three other RFRA cases: Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal in 2006 (also known as the “UDV” case), Tanzin v. Tanvir in 2020, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores in 2014. Holly wrote about the application of RFRA to corporations in light of the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Examining RFRA in light of Hobby Lobby J. Brent Walker, former executive director of BJC at the time, wrote about the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Exploring Hobby Lobby's narrow victory   Segment 3 (starting at 32:28): The state of RFRA today Here are additional resources from BJC providing more context on the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Podcasts: S1, Ep. 06: Stay-at-home orders, religious freedom and RFRA (2020) S1, Ep. 12: Not a charm: Contraceptive mandate returns to the Supreme Court for the third time (2020) S3, Ep. 03: What's going on with religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates? (2021) Video: Watch this video of former BJC General Counsel Oliver “Buzz” Thomas discussing the origins of RFRA Resources from BJC on cases: Zubik v. Burwell (2016) Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) Additional reading: Do states need religious freedom legislation? By J. Brent Walker, 2015 Contraceptive mandate oral arguments shed light on underreported issues by Holly Hollman, 2014 RFRA's constitutionality called into question by J. Brent Walker, 2014 RFRA at 20: A retrospective by Holly Hollman, 2013 Remembering the origins of RFRA by J. Brent Walker, 2013 Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

Alison, Liz, and Rebecca are joined by Professor Marci Hamilton, legal icon and leading expert on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and extreme religious liberty. Professor Hamilton explains the origin story of RFRA, how it has led us to the emerging theocracy we face, and what Americans can do to reclaim true religious liberty before it's too late.  Submit a question for the holiday mailbag episode here!   Background Professor Marci Hamilton's bio CHILD USA, Prof. Hamilton's think tank FFRF's FAQ on RFRA  Congressional Research Service primer on RFRA   Cases City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) Employment Division v. Smith (1990) Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020)  FFRF's amicus brief, written by Marci Hamilton American Atheists and Center For Inquiry's amicus brief 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023) U.S. Pastor Council (Braidwood Management) v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2023) Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012)     Check us out on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.

Imagine Congress was considering a bill to protect “religious liberty.” Let's say the bill's author openly admitted his intention was to “allow maximum religious freedom.” Maybe he says he's concerned about attempted governmental restrictions on Christian religious expression in particular.  Now imagine what the reaction to such a proposal would be on “X,” formerly known as Twitter. Surely this would be labeled “Christian Nationalism.” Congress would be accused of trying to establish a theocracy.   What if I told you that bill was real, and that it was called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that it was introduced by one Democratic Representative Chuck Schumer and signed into law by President Bill Clinton 30 years ago next month?  It's remarkable how quickly and dramatically the Overton Window has shifted in 30 years. It's important to remember that RFRA was widely supported and uncontroversial up until about five minutes ago. Christians shouldn't be ashamed or bullied into believing that the right to live out our faith is asking too much. The truth remains: Everyone benefits when the government respects “maximum religious freedom.”

Allison Hoots is an attorney with Hoots Law Practice PLLC. She has had a diverse experience practicing law, including in the legal areas of employment, corporate, contract, employee benefits, tax, and intellectual property. Allison advises companies, nonprofits, religious communities, and practitioners on operations that involve psychedelics, including advising churches on religious use of sacraments. Allison is also President of Sacred Plant Alliance, Inc., a self-regulating organization and professional society of spiritual practitioners with religious communities dedicated to the advancement of the ceremonial use of psychedelic sacraments within the United States. She is a member of Chacruna's Council for the Protection of Sacred Plants and the lead author of Chacruna's Guide to RFRA and Best Practices for Psychedelic Plant Medicine Churches.Episode Highlights▶ Allison Hoots is an attorney with broad legal expertise who strongly advocates for education, discernment, and accountability in the psychedelic industry▶ As the president of the Sacred Plant Alliance, Hoots prioritizes the establishment of self-regulation within the psychedelic realm▶ She explains the Sacred Plant Alliance's anonymous reporting system for emergencies and abuses in the psychedelic space▶ Hoots acknowledges the difficulty in legalizing churches for psychedelic use, noting the need for an affirmative defense▶ Medical screening and informed consent, according to Hoots, are crucial measures for safeguarding both individuals and spiritual communities involved with psychedelics▶ Hoots navigates the risks and benefits of harm reduction practices within the context of illegal drug use, advocating for the balance of enforceable rules and the potential for unintended criminalization▶ Hoots serves as an advisor to companies, nonprofits, religious communities, and practitioners on matters involving psychedelic operations▶ Hoots also provides guidance for psychedelic practitioners, helping to craft enforceable agreements to minimize legal risksAllison Hoot's Links & Resources▶ Website: https://hootslawpractice.com/▶ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/allisonhootsesq/▶ Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/allison-hoots-36067911/

This case presents an intersection between Native Americans’ free exercise rights and the Government’s power to regulate its territories. In 2014, Congress enacted the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. The Act effectuated a trade of land between Resolution Copper, a mining company, and the federal government. Resolution Copper gave the government 5,300 acres of environmentally sensitive and culturally important lands. In exchange, the Government gave Resolution Copper 2,400 acres containing the third largest copper deposit in the world. Within the 2,400-acre tract of land is Chi’chil Bildagoteel, or “Oak Flat”, a place of central spiritual importance to the Western Apache. It is the direct corridor to their Creator and the site of numerous religious ceremonies. If Resolution Copper is given the land, the religious site will be destroyed and turned into a mine. Apache Stronghold sued to prohibit the land trade under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Free Exercise Clause, and under a theory that the trade violates the Government’s trust obligation to the Apaches. The United States argued that pursuant to its constitutional authority over the territories and existing caselaw that the trade was lawful. The District Court rejected a preliminary injunction and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment by a 2–1 vote. Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented. And the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc this month. Apache Stronghold again presses its three claims. Centrally, it argues that the United States has substantially burdened the Apaches’ religious exercise by authorizing the transfer and destruction of Oak Flat—rendering their religious exercise impossible. The United States argues a line of precedent—culminating in Employment Division v. Smith—bar Apache Stronghold’s claims. The Government particularly relies on Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association, which permitted the U.S. Forest Service to develop a road through government land that would traverse a tribal holy site, stating, “Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area, however, those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land.” The United States argues that RFRA and the remainder of Apache Stronghold’s claims do not undermine the holding in Lyng. At stake is a religious site of central importance to a native tribe that cannot be replaced and development of the third largest copper deposit in the world. To discuss this exciting en banc hearing, the Federalist Society is pleased to host an excellent debate team. On behalf of Apache Stronghold, Luke Goodrich, VP and Senior Counsel for Becket, who is serving as lead counsel for Apache Stronghold. And defending the United States’ position, Anthony J. Ferate, who filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Support of Appellee United States. Featuring: Luke Goodrich, Vice President & Senior Counsel, Becket Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts

This week #scoopsquadwv hosts State Senator from the First District Laura Chapman from Ohio County as she discusses the Religious Freedom Act bill and the Vaccination Exemption bill. Also, Shari Johnson from Calhoun County's Ridgeview News describes in detail how the Calhoun County Commission disrespected their constituents at a county commission meeting and called the interested citizens in attendance troublemakers.

Brad Mcelhinny On RFRA by The Watchdog

In this episode of Real Talk, KJK Student Defense Attorneys Susan Stone and Kristina Supler are joined by Eugene Volokh, a leading First Amendment Law Professor from UCLA.  Topics they discuss are related to the First Amendment.  The conversation includes how the internet impacts Free Speech, what responsibilities the Social Media Platforms have towards free speech, and how Free Speech impacts abortion, fraternities and sororities, as well as housing laws. Links: Eugene Volokh's Bio (UCLA Webpage) Free Speech Rules Videos:  https://FreeSpeechRules.org Show Notes: (02:40)  Has the internet changed the First Amendment on Free Speech (03:33)  How the Supreme Court views Online versus Offline Free Speech (04:41)  How Search Engines Can Reveal Your Court Case (06:08)  How Posting on Social Media Can Open You To a Lawsuit (06:44)  What Posts Can You Go to Jail For (08:05)  Do Social Platforms Have the Legal Right To Remove People From Their Platforms? (13:35)  Do Social Platforms Have the Legal Right to Curtail Hate Speech (15:40)  What is Doxing?  How Can Social Platforms Prevent This from Happening to You (16:58)  What Courts Say About Publishing Your Information (19:39)  Should Schools Police What Students Are Publishing (20:14)  What Rights to Public Universities Have For Policing Students Posts (21:39)  Private Universities: What Rights Do They Have For Policing Posts (23:07)  Can Admissions Departments Reject Students for Previous Posts (25:33)  How First Amendment Protections Extend to Clothing (26:20)  How a Toy Gun Can Land a Student In Hot Water (28:16)  Students Today and Views on the First Amendment (30:49)  Can People Protest For Protections Related to Criminal Conduct (32:24)  Can People Get Exemptions By Saying a Law is Against Their Religion? (33:10)  What is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (35:07)  Can Businesses Prevent Men and Women From Working Together Based On Religious Beliefs? (36:58)  Can a Woman Get A Religious Exemption For Abortion Where It's Illegal (40:30)  How Courts Protect Your Right to Expressive Association (41:49)  Under What Circumstances Can You Exclude Someone From Living With You Based on Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation (44:03)  First Amendments Rights and Fraternities and Sororities. Transcript: Susan Stone: Kristina, can we geek out today and talk about the First Amendment?  Kristina Supler: I think we do that every day, but  Susan Stone: let's, okay. But let's talk on our podcast about the First Amendment, because our practice is often at the intersection of free speech when it impacts and conflicts with different types of student issues, like cancel culture or when students get disciplined, or Greek life issues like the Freedom of Association, uh, less often discussed First Amendment issue. Susan Stone: And it's difficult to balance the idea of the free exchange of ideas versus saying whatever you want, just because you wanna say it when you wanna say it and where you wanna say it. And it seems like everybody today is a lot less tolerant of views that aren't their own and cancel culture is becoming a very large part of our practice, which is why we launched our reputation management section. Kristina Supler: We are very pleased to be joined today by Professor Eugene Volokh who is a leading First Amendment scholar at U C L A, where he teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church, and state relations law, among many other classes. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and the US Supreme Court, and also for Judge Alex Kazinski on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who's also very well known,  Susan Stone: uh, and a court we've practiced  Kristina Supler: in. That's right. Yep. Um, Eugene is renowned for his textbook on the First Amendment, and he's actually one of the most cited law review article authors in our country. He's also the founder and co-author of the Highly Regarded Legal Blog, the Volokh Conspiracy, which is now hosted at reason.com. Kristina Supler: Thanks for joining us today. Oh, very much.  Eugene Volokh: My pleasure.  Susan Stone: And I should say I seasoned him. He was at a conference that we were at and you saw me inching up to Eugene, and I'm thinking I am going to make this person my friend, and talk about the First Amendment with him. So thank you for being on our podcast. Susan Stone: We're gonna start with a question broadly for our listeners. Eugene, how has the internet changed the way we view the First Amendment and freedom of speech in a very big way? And then we will drill down and funnel down that question  Eugene Volokh: well, depends on, uh, whom you mean by we. It hasn't so far, at least seemingly changed the way the justices view free speech or generally lower court judges, or in many ways, lawyers generally speaking the same kind of speech that is constitutionally protected offline is constitutionally protected online and vice versa. Eugene Volokh: Occasionally there have been times when. First Amendment law has turned a lot on the medium of expression, so for example, radio and television. Broadcast radio, television, not cable, let's say. Were, uh, were and probably still are seen as more regulatable for historical reasons. From the 19 teens to the 1950s, movies were seen as not really protected by the First Amendment, but the internet ever since near its birth as a popular medium. Eugene Volokh: Back in 1997, the Supreme Court said, speech on the internet is, Treated under the same rules as speech off line. So as a legal matter the internet hasn't changed First Amendment law much. Now I do think that people's reactions to various free speech questions may be affected by the internet. So, for example, I think a lot of people view things like Facebook and Twitter, those kinds of social media platforms, YouTube also and TikTok and various others as kind of part of their right to free speech and they get upset, understandably. Eugene Volokh: When those platforms restrict them, even though they're private platforms. So people would've probably said if the, if the New York Times refuses to publish my letter to the editor, well, of course, you know, they only publish as few too bad, but. But that's fine. Plus they get to decide where they want to publish and what they don't. Eugene Volokh: But I think the same people might very well bristle if Twitter or Facebook de deletes their posts for understandable reasons. Again. and, and there's an interesting question of whether that should affect the legal understanding, but but my guess is that at least it does affect people's understanding. Eugene Volokh: Another example has to do with access to court records. There's a longstanding tradition That material and court records is open to the public. Open to everybody. Yes. But it used to be before the internet. That meant that if you really wanted to get something on a court record, like maybe if you were a reporter and you were being to pay to write about lawsuits, you'd go to the courthouse, you'd go to the basement, you'd look at the, uh, at the files and you'd write about it. Eugene Volokh: But most, most court records would be basically invisible to. Now that they're all on the internet and often directly searchable, people get really upset that every case that they've been involved in, whether it was a witness as a plaintiffs, the defendant is a criminal defendant, as a victim, is now on the internet. Eugene Volokh: And people Google their names and they, they figure out uh, the stuff about them. So again, I do think the internet changes people's perceptions of information, of speech and the like, even if it hasn't changed the legal rules, at least. That's  Kristina Supler: actually a perfect segue to the next question I wanted to ask you, which is when you are speaking to, let's just say lay people, not, not judges or lawyers and, and speaking generally or more broadly about the First Amendment, what do you say? Kristina Supler: In terms of people who sort of have this idea that, well, on the internet, I'm, I'm an anonymous person, I can say whatever I want. It's the internet, it's the worldwide web. What do you say in terms of, well, maybe not quite there, there are some repercussions  Susan Stone: and that would be contained in the terms of service of the providers? Eugene Volokh: Oh, well, I think there are two questions lurking in here. One is somebody posts something. That, let's say, accuses someone else of some crime and then they get sued for libel too, not a newspaper. Why are you suing me for libel? Well, it turns out that. There are restrictions on speech. So for example, if you, especially if you say something knowingly false about someone else that damages the reputation, you could get sued and maybe, maybe before the internet, if you just said it orally, probably would be a lot harder to catch you and, but with the internet now, you could get caught. Eugene Volokh: Likewise, if you post something threatening. You could get prosecuted for a threat and people might say, well, what about free speech? Well, there are some narrow but significant exceptions to free speech, like for true threats of illegal conduct, like for defamation such as libel and the like. So people do have to remember that something that they just whip out in and angry or drunk or foolish moment. Eugene Volokh: To me, never, never you damaging. Today, , there's a separate question. Which is, well, what if it's something that violates, say, Twitter's terms of service or it doesn't even violate them. You know, private entities can generally remove your material or kick you off uh, for, uh, for whatever reasons they want right now. Eugene Volokh: At the same time though so how is that different from the things we started? Well, first of all, you're the, the, the downside to you, we have technology is pretty limited. Like people value their ability to tweet or value their ability to post on Facebook. But I think most people would rather, would rather get kicked off of Twitter than go to jail. Eugene Volokh: Uh, I would agree. ,  Susan Stone: my god, that is a bold statement, but, Would you take the position that you agree with decisions to pull someone off of Twitter like Kanye West or Donald Trump?  Eugene Volokh: Well, so it lot depends on what you mean by a Greek. So for example, I, I think that that large wealthy platform corporations like Twitter and Facebook should not be. Eugene Volokh: Essentially interfering with public debate about elections by taking government officials or candidates for office and kicking them off of their sites. Now, maybe they have the right to do that. They certainly have the legal right to do that. At least in most states. There's some state laws try to limit that. Eugene Volokh: It's an interesting question whether they're constitutional, but they might very well have the legal right to do that. One might still say that's not really good for. When a platform, just because it happens to have a lot of users and be economically extraordinarily wealthy and powerful, that it should be able to leverage that economic power into political power. Eugene Volokh: So that's a lot more of a concern with regard to candidates may still be applicable to Kayne West. Well, by the way, I think he is talking about running. For president, but uh, think it's particularly dangerous when they do that with regard to credible candidates for office. Because if an election, which could have been 51 49, 1 way is swung 51 49 another way because. Eugene Volokh: Uh, Jack Dorsey or Elon Musk or, uh, Zuckerberg decide that they, that they don't like a particular kind of speech, even for good reason, decide that that may be something we might be troubled by. We may say they should have the legal right to do this, but we might suggest that they ought not do it. Eugene Volokh: There's a separate question of may the government step in and say, You might think that you are like a newspaper, which gets to decide what's in it, put in its pages. You might think you're like a bookstore, which gets to decide what books to sell. But we think you're actually more like the phone company, which isn't entitled to say, we're gonna cut off someone's phone line because they're communists. Eugene Volokh: Or they're recruiting for the kkk, or they're recruiting for Antifa, or something like that. So, Is that permissible? Would it be permissible for the government to say, we're so worried about you being able to leverage your economic power and your ownership of this tremendously important means of communication into political power that we're gonna require you to be viewpoint neutral in your decision. Eugene Volokh: So not to kick off people because they're racist or anti-Semites, or because they're spreading particular views about covid or about elections or. That's an interesting and difficult question, and maybe the answer is that those platforms would have the right not to say, recommend certain posts not to pitch those posts to users as you might be interested in this or that because that's their speech, but might be required to host it, to host those posts on their. Eugene Volokh: So it could be that certain kinds of regulations as to the, what I call the hosting function of platforms are constitutionally permissible, whereas regulations of what I call the recommendation function of the platforms, which is a lot more, their speech would be impermissible.  Eugene Volokh: So I am really wrestling with that. Eugene Volokh: Is the, are these providers more like a telephone service company and we don't want the government listening in our co in on our conversation? Well, Eugene Volokh: I'm sorry if I can interrupt. I just wanna make clear the telephone point is not about privacy, it's not about confidentiality. Thank you. Even if somebody is widely known to be using a telephone line as a communist recruitment line, or a kkk, get out the vote line. Eugene Volokh: They're promoting it this way. Nobody's listening in on anything. It's well. still, then a phone company is not allowed to say, we're going to cancel your phone line because we think you're using it for evil purposes. No phone companies have to serve everybody so long as they, so long as they pay they can't engage in viewpoint based discrimination among their subscribers as opposed to, uh, among their users, let's say, the people who have phone lines as opposed to say a newspaper, which. Eugene Volokh: And probably should decide which op-eds to publish based in part on their viewpoint. Susan Stone: Thank you for that clarification. Would the barometer of censorship move up as the language moves from hate to calling for violence? Does that change your view? Is that like yelling? Fire in a theater. When you get on Twitter and say, this person is bad, cancel them, hurt them, or this candidate, let's storm the capitol. Susan Stone: I mean, when do you think there is the obligation? When does it really change from a moral obligation to a legal obligation to intervene?  Eugene Volokh: Okay, so again, we have. Several different things going on here. One is shouting fire in a crowded theater. I just wanna make it clear, the Supreme Court did say in a case, which actually since then has been overruled in considerable measure shank of the United States, uh, that the First Amendment doesn't protect falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and thereby starting a panic. Eugene Volokh: So that was already a pretty narrow category of things that indeed are legally punish. So I wanna bracket this question of shouting fire in a crowded theater, falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's, I, it's often used as an analogy, but it actually isn't much of an analogy because, precisely because to the extent the court has endorsed it, it's really very narrow. Eugene Volokh: It has to do with, with falsehoods that risk, knowing falsehoods, really that risk, imminent, imminent stampe, imminent loss of life. the second question is should platforms make, distinguish between. So-called hate speech, which could just be the spreading of opinions sharply critical of racial groups or religious groups. Eugene Volokh: By the way, that's very common for people to sharply criticize religions or of sexual orientations or gender identities or of sexist or whatever else, and calling for violence and yeah, I could imagine a platform saying, look, we are open to all sorts of viewpoints, but not the viewpoint that you should go out there and act violent. Eugene Volokh: So if you say, let's go out there and kill the Jews, or if you say, let's go out there and kill police officers. Or if you say, let's go out there and engage in violent revolution and kill the oppressive capitalists. Or let's go out there and kill the spoilers of the earth. Who are who are polluting our, our atmosphere with with greenhouse gases, whatever your ideology may be. Eugene Volokh: If you're calling for violence, we're gonna kick you off. I think, you know, you could imagine a platform plausibly saying, I think. , look, this is, this is something where we draw the line. We're gonna accept a wide range of views, including about race, about religion and such, but not if you call violence. So, so you could imagine that. Eugene Volokh: Now again, phone companies can't even do that, right? Uh, but you can imagine that possibly being a reasonable position for a company uh, to take. There's a third cat question though. Okay. Which maybe returns.  Eugene Volokh: Yeah, I wanna bring a scenario to you, and it might be that third category. Kristina and I had a case around a year ago where, uh, students were considered unpopular for various reasons on campus, and they were doxed, and these, our clients were terrified that their families were. Eugene Volokh: Going to be hurt. And I think that doxing has become a much bigger problem on college campuses. Eugene Volokh: So I'm gonna need you to define doxing. because people have used doxing to mean a lot of things. Okay. Tell me what you mean by doxing.  Kristina Supler: Publicly outing someone's home address telephone number so that other people can gang up on them and sort of got it. Kristina Supler: Espouse the mob and town. .  Eugene Volokh: So that's a very interesting question. So you're talk, uh, about whether it should be permissible for the government or maybe just for a public university with regard to its students, to forbid the publication of people's home addresses and phone numbers. The reason it sounds so appealing is you can have all sorts of public debates by and large, without knowing people's home addresses or phone numbers. Eugene Volokh: So one could imagine such a rule, and in fact there are a. Few statutes that do target that, or even more clearly like social security numbers. Very hard to see how my social security number is going to be relevant to some public debate. So you could argue that that's the kind of thing that should be restrict. Eugene Volokh: By the, the courts have not really been quite firm, even on social security numbers. They haven't had a lot of occasion to deal with it when there have been attempts to outlaw the publication of home addresses, usually focused on home addresses, say have police officers and others. Oh, legislators is another case that I was actually involved in as a lawyer. Eugene Volokh: Courts have said, no, it's unconstitutional to ban such publication, and there are various reasons. One of them, by the way, is that in most of the country, it is legal to picket it outside someone's home. I'm not wild about residential picketing, but it's a tactic that has been used and continues to be used by the left and by the right, by various groups on the left and on the right. Eugene Volokh: And if there is a legal right as there is in most places it could be restricted by ordinances or statutes, but most places don't ban residential picketing. If there's a legal right to picket someone's home, there has to be a legal right to inform. Home to this place that, cuz that's the home we're gonna be picketing. Eugene Volokh: So that's what makes that pretty complicated. But note Gary, you said, you said at home addresses and phone numbers, I often hear doxing used to refer to other things like, for example, a person's identity, the identity of a person who would rather remain anonymous. Like somebody who is a, an anonymous online commenter and somebody says, we think they're a troll. Eugene Volokh: We're gonna track them down and we're gonna tell you this is the person's name. Well, that could lead to possible threats against the person. It's also the sort of thing that newspapers pretty routinely do too, right? Like if you write a story about someone who'd rather not be written about, they could say, you're doxing me. Eugene Volokh: You're revealing my personal information. What's that information? My name? Well, it is personal information, but we. Have to have the right to talk about people's names and to find, figure out who's the person who's anonymously doing this or that. Likewise, sometimes people say, well, uh, this person docks me by revealing the name of my employer. Eugene Volokh: Well, that too might be relevant for a variety of reasons, both to figure out, let's say if the anonymous commenter is hired by somebody, maybe they gives them a conflict of interest if they'll say anonymous journalist or a popular tweeter or something like that. Also, sometimes people do organize. Or threatened boycots of employers because of the speech of their employees. Eugene Volokh: I don't approve of that as a general matter. But but in many places it's legal. And again, if that's legal, then you have to be able to identify whom you need to threaten to boycott. Hmm.  Kristina Supler: Eugene, I wanna switch gears a little bit. So Susan and I represent students across the country involved in a lot of different types of matters, general student misconduct, title ix, so on and so forth. Kristina Supler: I'm wondering what are your thoughts on whether schools should get involved in sort of policing what students post on the internet?  Eugene Volokh: Well, at least it de, it depends on what kind of. Uh, so  Kristina Supler: course private, private ,  Eugene Volokh: public versus private college versus high school. Yeah, high school versus elementary school. Eugene Volokh: That's actually gonna be our follow  Kristina Supler: up  Eugene Volokh: question, so let's take an example and also what kind of things are they, are they posting? So let's take an example. Let's say UCLA starts policing what people post by threatening to expel them for racist posts. That's a first amendment. If that's the policy, it's open and shut, unconstitutional. Eugene Volokh: And whoever is targeted by this should sue and they'll get, they'll get money, or at least their lawyers will get attorney fees. Uh, so, so that's, oh, that's good. always, that's always, you're  Susan Stone: speaking my language, .  Eugene Volokh: Exactly. . So, okay, so that's an example. But let's look even at the public university context. Eugene Volokh: Let's say the university says, you know, we've been hearing about various threats of violence. It could be racist violence, or it could just be, you know, there's chatter, like there's a strike going on and there's chatter about maybe vandalizing government buildings, uh, university building. And of hurting another  Susan Stone: student  Eugene Volokh: or of hurting another student, which is what we deal with Sore gonna do, is we're gonna monitor that, maybe hire someone to search for these things, maybe set up some ai, like talk to our computer science department. Eugene Volokh: Can you set up an AI that monitors tweaks to see if there are, if there seem to be references to things connected to our university, and then have somebody probably, it's not. And AI would have to be some human looking through and saying, oh, wait a minute. That either that, maybe that looks like a death threat and that's something we should prosecute someone for. Eugene Volokh: Or maybe even, it doesn't look like it's illegal itself, but it's useful information for us to know because maybe we wanna have more police presence at someplace or something like that. Or, or alternatively, let's say that it's not a threat of. What it is, is somebody posting, posting, uh, information about forthcoming exams that they managed to hack into somebody's computer. Eugene Volokh: Right. Oh, we know.  Susan Stone: Yes. We had those cases.  Eugene Volokh: Right, right. You know, you'd think that universities ought to be policing that public or private, doesn't really matter. Now, what if it's a private university? What if it's Harvard that decides we're gonna expel people who express anti-trans views? I think that would be very bad. Eugene Volokh: I don't think it's unconstitutional because Harvard's a private, if they do it university. Well, if they do it, I think that's a violation of academic freedom principles. It may be a violation of, of academic freedom policies that they've adopted as contracts in California, by the way, they weren't Harvard, but if we were Stanford, California has a statute that bars. Eugene Volokh: Private universities, generally speaking, there's an important exception we'll get to from expelling students based on, on their speech and otherwise disciplining students based  Susan Stone: on their speech. And I do wanna say, when I say they, I don't mean Harvard in particular listeners out there. I am saying though, that schools, that generally, schools generally, I wanna make that clarification in fact. Susan Stone: Eugene, we had cases where college admissions were revoked when school admissions committees were informed after an acceptance of students. We've had a couple of those cases that students, when they were 16, 15, made comments that were. Either consider racist or sexist. Mm-hmm. and against the values of the institution. Susan Stone: So there is a lot going on when schools find out about certain types of  Eugene Volokh: speech. Right, right. And I do think that that kind of policing is improper. And again, a private university may be free to do that, but I don't think it should, but, . Let's assume that this is particular kind of university, which is known as a theological seminary. Eugene Volokh: Mm-hmm. , where they say, you know, we believe in some particular religious viewpoint and we want to train future ministers of that viewpoint. And you've just been posting about how you're an atheist. Or posting things that, that, maybe not even an atheist, cuz then why would you want to come, come, uh, to study at our school? Eugene Volokh: You're a heretic, right? You claim you are a good ex Methodist, let's say, but really your views are ones we do not want around our institution. You know, I would cut, I, I would be more open to the, that kind of university doing it in part. My sense is a lot of these places, not all of them, I think some theological seminaries do, and some religious schools more broadly do make a big thing out of how they are open to all sorts of views. Eugene Volokh: But if some of them do in fact say, you know, we're, we're not there to educate everybody regardless of viewpoint. We are there. Promo promulgate our understanding of the gospel. Well then it's something more plausible for them to say, we're trying to build a community of people who think like us and not people who think differently from us. Eugene Volokh: So, so again, that's just the university level at the high school and the junior high school and elementary school level, it may be even even different. So that's, That's why it's, uh, it's hard to answer these questions in the abstract,  Susan Stone: so we'll drill down. We have every, typically it's either after spring break, we have a number of cases where younger kiddos, especially junior high students, middle school age, love posting pictures of themselves, either with toy guns or a bullet or the ubiquitous. Susan Stone: Hitler mustache, and we usually have to deal with those cases because they are, they usually get issued a suspension or expulsion notice.  Eugene Volokh: Right. Well, so I think a lot depends on the circumstances. A lot depends on whether there's evidence of substantial disruption. For example, something may depend on whether it's in a context where it looks like it's threatening or where it targets a particular person at the same time. Eugene Volokh: I've been involved in some cases where uh, there were attempts to punish students for just not even punish them, but just to stop them from wearing t-shirts that depict weapons to school. Well, and they, they were wearing some disciplined mm-hmm. . Mm-hmm. . And they, and they. Where, for example, some t-shirts that support gun rights, that have a picture of a gun or that have the logo of a pro-gun rights organization that has a gun on it. Eugene Volokh: They were told not to wear it and courts generally say no, they have a First Amendment right to wear it. There's no, there's no pictures of guns exception to the First Amendment, Kristina. So likewise with toy guns, if somebody, if a school were to say, you are not allowed to pose even outside school on the internet with a toy gun. Eugene Volokh: I think that's a First Amendment violation. Now, if what was happening is these, that the student had a picture of himself with a gun that doesn't look like a toy gun, turns out it's a toy gun, doesn't look like a toy gun, and he's saying, teacher Jones, you know I'm gonna shoot you with this. Well, even if it turns out that he couldn't do it, cuz it's a toy gun, that may very well be a punishable. Eugene Volokh: Yeah.  Susan Stone: Kristina, don't you think we've come so far from Tinker Vido, the case where students prevailed in protecting their right to protest Vietnam to what's going on today. Do you think there's a difference?  Kristina Supler: Oh gosh. I mean, it's just, I, I keep coming back to the internet and the impact of the internet and these online platforms for students too. Kristina Supler: Cause of course, that's primarily the lens that we're sort of examining these issues through is from a student perspective, the level, what is said, the, the. persistence with what is said, the frequency, how people sort of jump on the bandwagon. And you know, I, I, I don't especially love the phrase cancel culture, but it's just a reality now and students are caught up in things so often, for better or for worse. Kristina Supler: It can be scary at times. Yeah.  Susan Stone: When we talk to students, if someone says something that is, they love the word, the, the word of 22 is not triggering. They don't like being gas lit. I don't know if you're hearing you gaslight me. Um, do kids. Fight. I think of Tinker Vido. I think of I'm 56 and how precious the First Amendment is. Susan Stone: Do you think students even value the First Amendment anymore, or is everyone just like, I, I'm triggered. You're causing me anxiety, you're causing me depression. I don't wanna talk about it. Don't say anything.  Eugene Volokh: Everyone is, a lot of people, students are a large  Susan Stone: group . Are  Kristina Supler: you suggesting that we ought not generalize Eugene Volokh: Well, I'd be hesitant to say that I know how people think. Including people that I spend very little time around. I spent very little time around, say K through 12 students. Except, except my, my kids who were one of whom just went to college, but they were both K through 12 for, for many years. And I saw some of their classmates, cause that's, they skipped high school Eugene Volokh: But, but, but that's a very, uh, narrow subset of the whole population. And I don't even know all. On top of that, if you're comparing to how things were back in Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District back in 1969 that's, uh, you know, I certainly don't know what kids those days thought. Right. And I don't think there were good surveys that we could look back on. Eugene Volokh: And then on top of that, I think, um, a lot of students may say, you know, we value free speech, but with some, except, And the fact is, almost all of us, even those who value free speech a lot, recognize some exception. Again, for threats or for liable or, or, or for the like. So what I think has happening out there is there are, if you're talking about students, there are many tens of millions of students. Eugene Volokh: Who have different views about who should be free to speak under which circumstances. And then on top of that, there are probably quite a few who haven't really thought hard about the subject. So as a consequence, you ask them a question in a survey, they may give you an answer just to get you off off their backs. Eugene Volokh: But it could be a different answer tomorrow when something ill different is in the news because it's not something that they're really. To rest on as a as a kind of a, a, a, with a definitive answer. So I don't know what students these days think. I have a much better sense of what the legal rules are because they are set forth in part by our hierarchical authority, by the Supreme Court, and I can read their, their opinions. Eugene Volokh: I, I can read the minds of tens of millions of student. I'd like to, it  Kristina Supler: indulge me as we do a little law school exam question. Let's talk about criminalization of abortion. We've obviously had a recent significance, Supreme Court ruling and how that sort of meshes with or intersects with free speech considerations, particularly on public college campuses. Kristina Supler: I'm curious what your thoughts are if students live in a state where abortion is illegal, are they free to publicly protest and rally for something? otherwise a, a crime. What other speech pre are there still speech protections for protests related to criminal conduct?  Eugene Volokh: Well, what, what you're, what you're describing is a protest that maybe that they may include just decriminalizing conduct. Eugene Volokh: Just like people are free to rally for decriminalizing marijuana in a case that, that, and excuse me, in a state that still bans marijuana, they're free to rally for decriminalizing abortion. , right? Or not even decriminalizing, but fully legalizing and funding abortion. I'm perfectly free to do that more. Eugene Volokh: What about  Susan Stone: religious considerations? What if you are a student, you find that you're pregnant and you are part of a religion where your clergy says, You know what? I don't think you are in a position. I think your health is endangered. You should go get an abortion. Do you think that the state has the right to interfere with that free exercise of what someone had going on between that person and their clergy? Eugene Volokh: Well, so the answers may be, but the important thing is that, or one important thing is we've now moved a lot from a right to speak to a right to act, right? So remember I said you don't, you have a right to. , you have a right to argue that marijuana should be legalized. You have a right to argue that heroin should be legalized. Eugene Volokh: Perfectly good arguments that both should be legalized. That doesn't necessarily doesn't mean that you have the right to actually use marijuana. Or to use heroin. And incidentally, marijuana is an example of where at least some religious groups, uh, do view it as a sacrament. And courts have generally said no to those kinds of claims. Eugene Volokh: So, so the one thing we know for sure is people can't just get an exemption from a generally applicable religion neutral law simply by saying, I don't like it, or It's against my religion, or, My spiritual leader tells me that it's a bad law or tells me we should violate that law that can't by itself be enough because then otherwise all of us could violate any laws we want just by announcing this is part of our religion. Eugene Volokh: Or maybe maybe joining some religion that authorizes that. So it's a very different question. The pre speech question is very different from freedom of action. Now as to freedom of action, it is quite complic. It so there's for example, a case that was just decided by a trial court in Indiana. Eugene Volokh: Indiana has a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It's modeled on a federal law that applies to federal statutes, but this one applies to state statutes in Indiana, these are called RRA for short. So the Indiana RRA says essentially that if the government substantially burdens somebody's religious belief through some regulation, then that person gets an exemption. Eugene Volokh: Unless the government can show that denying the exemption, that applying the law, notwithstanding the religious objection is narrowly tailored to compelling government interest. So let me give you an easy case under the law in favor of an exemption. Many courtrooms, as I understand it, probably most have a rule that says you can't wear hats in. Eugene Volokh: Agreed. Why? It's just sort of seen as disrespectful. It's not a, it's not a tremendously important rule, but it is the rule and you can't just say, I don't like this rule. I like my cap. Baseball cap. Nope, sorry. You wanna be in a courtroom. You gotta follow the rules. But let's say that hat is a Yamal cup or it's a Sikh turt, or it's a Muslim woman's or Orthodox Jewish woman's head scarf, let's say. Eugene Volokh: Or it's a Catholic nun. Headgear well, that there you might very well have an exemption. Why? Because the law prohibits you from doing something your religion tells you to do. That's the substantial burden part, and it's hard to see some compelling government interest in making sure that people not wear a headgear in, in court. Eugene Volokh: Maybe it's a. Legitimate interest, maybe even a substantial interest, but compelling. The law says it's gotta be very, very higher.  Susan Stone: So folks, so there's out there listening. I just wanna add, when we get calls about, I wanna be on a sports team and I want a Covid exemption. Yep.  Eugene Volokh: There you go. There you go. Eugene Volokh: And in states that have, uh, these kinds of RFRA rules, you may very well get such an exception. Okay, so let's look at ex at an example of something that, uh, that pretty clearly wouldn't. Uh, viewed as basis for an exemption. Let's say somebody says, you know, I, my religion tells me that men and women shouldn't work together because that's contrary to modesty rules. Eugene Volokh: So I'm not gonna hire this woman to work in this particular secluded place to right next to a man because, you know, he was there first and I'm not gonna fire him, and I'm not gonna hire a woman to work with him. That violates anti-discrimination. and, but the person says, you know, my religion tells me that it would be sinful for me to put men and women in a situation where there may be temptation. Eugene Volokh: Well, okay, maybe that substantially burdens your religious beliefs, but there's a compelling government interest in ensuring equal opportunity and employment and making sure that women or men or others aren't handicapped in, in getting in, in, in developing their careers this way. So that, so that's just a reminder that restrictions on conduct. Eugene Volokh: Are often permissible, even if restrictions on speech wouldn't be, let's say for example, he says, I want to speak out urging all anti-discrimination laws be repealed. He has every right to do that. The First Amendment obviously protects his right to argue in favor of the propriety of discrimination, even if it's illegal, because what's illegal now could be made legal later. Eugene Volokh: That's part of the political process, but it doesn't mean he can violate this law. So, one question, the abortion situation. Does the law substantially burden a woman's religious beliefs? So for that, she has to be able to sincerely testify that her religion is motivating her to get an abortion. So as I understand it, at least many rabbis say that. Eugene Volokh: Women should get an abortion to avoid threats to life. But of course, state laws already allow that. But also threats to physical and mental health. So if the woman concludes that she, that there would be really extremely mentally. Damaging for her to have another child whom she may be emotionally or financially unprepared to take care of. Eugene Volokh: Then in that case, she should get an abortion. So if that's so, and if the woman believes that, that's a substantial burden, by the way, if the woman just says, my religion tells me that abortions are fine, that's, that's not enough to trigger this religious exemption regime. The religion has to tell her that she actually should get it, not that it's her right to get it. Eugene Volokh: So then the question. Can the government show that there's a compelling interest in preventing abortions, and that's something that courts in those states are going to have to resolve. And that's one thing that makes this such a complicated question. How do you decide? I mean the, the statute says compelling government interest, but nobody has ever set up a clear rule as to what is a compelling government interest and what's not. Eugene Volokh: So that's what makes this an extra complicated question. Much more complicated than a lot of free speech  Susan Stone: questions. Yeah. Compelling to whom? What's compelling to you may not be compelling to me, Susan.  Eugene Volokh: I have. Right. Although the court, the statute seems to say compelling in the judges'. . That's  Susan Stone: right.  Kristina Supler: Yeah. Kristina Supler: Susan, we're here with the foremost first Amendment scholar expert in our country. I want you to ask him a question about fraternities.  Susan Stone: Are you ready? are you ready for Let's go deep. Okay. Because it's gonna be our final question. We represent a lot of students in hazing cases, and we see a lot of campuses. Susan Stone: The minute there's an allegation of hazing. Shut down the fraternity. Do students have a First Amendment associational Right to gather in a Greek organization? And, you know, do I have the right to drink beer with people under the same Greek letters or can colleges say you're out, you don't, how does that whole Right to free association. Susan Stone: I always think that's something we don't talk about in the First Amendment. Play into that decision. It's so  Kristina Supler: interesting how, uh, every day in our cases we're dealing with you know, issues that are. Teenagers, college students. But from a legal perspective, there's, there's pretty weighty constitutional issues at  Susan Stone: play at Well, yeah, and it, for my corporate partners out there, take that. Susan Stone: We have some big issues in the student and athlete defense practice. Right.  Kristina Supler: What are your thoughts on, on what's happening now with Greek organizations on college campus and, and what really feels like the push to do away with them and, and the tension? I think with freedom of association and I think that was  Susan Stone: part of litigation, correct. Susan Stone: To get rid of single sex organizations.  Eugene Volokh: Okay. So it's compliment as it, but it's often  Susan Stone: complicated. ,  Kristina Supler: so it's complicated for a couple of  Eugene Volokh: weeks. One is there are actually. Two kinds of constitutional rights that are labeled the Right to Associate and the Supreme Court in a 1983 case. Uh, Roberts, v US Jaycees actually went into this in a little bit of detail. Eugene Volokh: I'm sorry, I just looked it up. Uh, I got it wrong. 1984 Case Roberts  Susan Stone: c James. That's okay. I got the Des Moines v, the Des Moines Tinker v Des Moines Rock. So it's okay. It's okay. We're among the friends and listeners.  Eugene Volokh: Neither of those rights is actually listed in the Constitution, but the court has said for a long time, there's a right to expressive association, which is to say a right to associate in ways that promote your ability to express your views. Eugene Volokh: And for example, in a political association,  Susan Stone: I'm a Democrat, religious association Republican. Got it. Right.  Eugene Volokh: So for example, if the government were to say, Uh, that people can't form political organizations. They wanna speak, they can just speak by themselves, but they can't pool their resources in order to, uh, to express themselves. Eugene Volokh: That would be clearly unconstitutional because it would violate the right to expressive association. There's also a right to intimate association, which the court has said extends to basically small. Groups of people who are either very close friends or have to share living quarters and the like. You know my, so I'll give you an example, a  Susan Stone: little dirty on that. Susan Stone: Kristina . Sorry, I, I always go to the gutter, don't I?  Kristina Supler: Yeah, indeed. Indeed. But go  Eugene Volokh: on. So write to intimate association. Here's an example of a case where this was implicated fr it's not from the Supreme Court, but from the ninth Circuit. So out, out uh, on the West Coast, it's, but it's an important federal appellate court. Eugene Volokh: There was, a lawsuit which asked whether a roommate finding service was entitled to provide ways for people to search for roommates of the same sex and roommates or of the opposite sex, but search for roommates, bi sex and bisexual orientation, or whether that was. Whether that was impermissible housing discrimination in violation of state law, and the court said, look, yeah, that's a, as a landlord, you don't have the right, generally speaking to say, I'm not gonna rent a women or to gays, or to blacks, or to Jews, or to fundamentalist Christians. Eugene Volokh: but as a roommate, even one who's just looking for a stranger to share an apartment with you, you could say, look, you know, I'm a woman. I'm only comfortable with other women, or I'm only comfortable with straight women. I don't want a lesbian woman, or I'd prefer a lesbian woman. Or even, you know, I'm black and I wanna live with other blacks, or I'm a. Eugene Volokh: I'm of Korean extraction. I wanna live with other Koreans, or I want to keep a kosher household. And in order for that to work, I I want to live with other Jews. So that's an, the court said, I oversimplify here a little bit, but it basically said, yes, there is this right of intimate association of choosing whom you are going to live with. Eugene Volokh: So, right of expressive association, as I understand it would rarely apply to fraternities. They're not fundamentally organized in order to express their. They may in the process sometimes do that, like they may put out statements or engage in some political activity or some such, but that's very very slight part of what they do. Eugene Volokh: And in fact, in Roberts v US jcs, the court said it basically a, an adult fraternity, the Junior Chamber of Commerce, the jcs, like an adult club like that was not protected. By expressive association law, at least against application of anti-discrimination laws, it was required to let in women. On the other hand, fraternities, I think, are intimate associations. Eugene Volokh: They are groups of people living together to be sure. It's not one person, one roommate. It could be a couple of dozen people or more living together, but they do live together. They share household chores. They do, as I understand, it takes seriously the notion that they're supposed to become friends and brothers and such. Eugene Volokh: So they may have. Not under the First Amendment right of expressive association, but under the 14th Amendment right of Intimate Association. But the question is how far those rights extend. So I think if a university said, public university said, if you belong to a single sex fraternal or seral organization, we will expel you. Eugene Volokh: That would be as unconstitutional as saying, we'll expel you for marrying someone or we'll expel you for having as a roommate someone who is of the same sex as you, or the opposite sex or whatever else. That would be an interference with their right of intimate association  Susan Stone: under the 14th amendment. Eugene Volokh: Uh, exactly. However, let's say the university. You know, what you do off campus property is entirely up to you. And if you wanna live off campus with some people who, and call it a fraternity, it's all the same to us as if you wanna live with some camp, some people off campus and call it a roommates, however, If you want access to certain on-campus housing that we have historically leased to fraternities or sororities, well, we're gonna say no. Eugene Volokh: We're only gonna release them now from now on to kind of unisex groups, groups that allow members of both sexes. Well, there, the government would be acting essentially as landlords and would have a good deal of authority to say, you know, our property, we want our property to be used for. Unisex groups and not for single sex groups. Eugene Volokh: So a lot depends on the particular rules that the institutions are, are creating. And of course, a lot also depends on whether it's a private institution or not. Cuz if it's a private institution, it's not bound by constitutional by, by 14th Amendment rules or First amendment rules. Uh, and the first place, because it's not the. Eugene Volokh: Thank you  Kristina Supler: so much. Good food for thought today. This 14th amendment issue in particular, not on my radar, so I've learned a great deal today, but it's been such a pleasure speaking with you, Eugene. We're really grateful for your time today.  Susan Stone: and I am so happy that I inched myself up. Eugene was actually talking, do you remember about the use of pseudonyms? Susan Stone: Mm-hmm. and at our conference, and we often file as John Doe, so we were listening to what you had to say because we usually have had our motions for pseudonyms. Granted very important issue. And very important issue. Yes. And I have to tell you, trying to cover. All of the First Amendment issues that we wrestle with in our practice in the span of an hour. Susan Stone: Impossible, but you have boiled it down. Did anyone ever tell you to write First Amendment for Dummies? I would be the first to buy that copy and well, I  Eugene Volokh: will say I did put together. Thanks for the generous, uh, thanks to Generous Grant by the Stanton Foundation. I put together. A series of 10 videos called Free Speech Rules. Eugene Volokh: So if you go to free speech rules.org, one word, or you search for free speech rules, and especially Embolic on YouTube, you'll find these videos. They're mostly aimed at kind of high school students and college students. They're kind of snappy and short and graphical, wonderful. But you know, I think all of us might like something snappy and short and graphical. Eugene Volokh: So they'll actually cover not all of the First Amendment by any means, but some of the issues. College student speech, high school student speech, and the luck.  Susan Stone: I love it. And thank you for sharing that everyone please check it out in and check it out. And thanks for being on Real talk with Susan and Kristina.

Today on the show we are discussing the state of psychedelic legislation in the wake of Colorado's Proposition 22 passing in November. Sharing the most relevant implications for psychedelic therapists and healers we have the best person for the job, MAPS Director of Policy and Advocacy Ismail Lourido Ali. On the show we discuss legalization vs decriminalization. We look at the different tracks for psychedelic legalization from medicalization to religious exception to regulated adult use. We discuss Oregon's Bills 109 and 110 exploring “scope of practice,” residency laws, and training reciprocity. We look at Colorado's Proposition 22 and the two big differences between that and what was passed in Oregon two years ago. We discuss equity initiatives. Ismail shares what legalization efforts look like on the federal level and to close our conversation, he speaks directly to psychedelic healers. As MAPS' Director of Policy and Advocacy, Ismail advocates to eliminate barriers to psychedelic therapy and research, develops and implements legal and policy strategy, and supports MAPS' governance, non-profit, and ethics work. Ismail earned his J.D. at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 2016, after receiving his bachelor's in philosophy from California State University, Fresno. Ismail has previously worked for the ACLU of Northern California's Criminal Justice & Drug Policy Project, and Berkeley Law's International Human Rights Law Clinic. Ismail is licensed to practice law in the state of California, and is a founding board member of the Psychedelic Bar Association. Ismail is passionate about setting sustainable groundwork for a just, equitable, and generative post-prohibition world. Timestamps :06 - Izzy's role as Director of Policy and Advocacy for MAPS :10 - Legalization vs decriminalization :16 - Religious exception vs medicalization :22 - Oregon' regulated adult use system (Bill 109) :28 “Scope of practice” and psilocybin facilitation licenses in Oregon. :34 - Information for practitioners hoping to offer services in Oregon or Colorado including residency laws and training reciprocity :40 - Two big differences in the recently passed Colorado's Prop 22 :47 - Equity initiatives in Oregon and Colorado :54 - What can we anticipate around federal legislation in psychedelics Links Izzy's Instagram Izzy Twitter Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies - MAPS MAPS Twitter MAPS Instagram Psychedelic Bar Association Guide to RFRA and Best Practices for Psychedelic Plant Medicine Churches Oregon Health Authority MAPS analysis regarding Oregon's Measures 109 and 110 passed in Nov 2020 MAPS analysis regarding Colorado Proposition 122 MAPS analysis regarding our work on SB519 in CA to decriminalize the personal use of all psychedelics

Michael Morris, Michele Swinick and Pastor Greg discuss the media role in suppressing truth. Shaping narratives. Elon Musk, Intimidating Election Officials, hiring private law firms, silence on voter fraud, suppressing free speech. Rev. Clenard Childress Is anything sacred in America today? Where is the church's voice on life, creation and marriage? Pastors and denominations are silent and now under the RFMA all ability to speak biblical truth might well be taken away. RFRA and DOMA protections are gone, and children and the unborn will pay the price.

Michael Morris, Michele Swinick and Pastor Greg discuss the media role in suppressing truth. Shaping narratives. Elon Musk, Intimidating Election Officials, hiring private law firms, silence on voter fraud, suppressing free speech. Rev. Clenard Childress Is anything sacred in America today? Where is the church's voice on life, creation and marriage? Pastors and denominations are silent and now under the RFMA all ability to speak biblical truth might well be taken away. RFRA and DOMA protections are gone, and children and the unborn will pay the price.

It's time for a crash course in the legal history of religious liberty! Can a "Satanic abortion ritual" trump pro-life legislation? How does religious liberty impact efforts to protect life in the womb? Kelsey Hazzard, founder of Secular Pro-Life, provides a valuable introduction to a new frontier in abortion litigation. Below are the legal opinions cited in the presentation. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 250 (1993) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) Jehovah's Witnesses in the State of Washington v. King County Hospital Unit No. 1 (Harborview), 278 F.Supp. 488 (W.D. Wash. 1967) In re Clark, 185 N.E.2d 128 (Ohio Ct. of C.P. 1962) Hoener v. Bertinato, 67 N.J.Super. 517 (1961) Learn more about Secular Pro-Life at secularprolife.org.   Transcript: Kelsey Hazzard: Hello everyone and welcome to Religious Liberty Justifications for Violence: a Legal Analysis. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Kelsey Hazard. I am the founder and president of Secular Pro-Life. SPL is an atheist led organization advancing secular arguments against abortion and uniting people of every faith and none to protect prenatal human beings. I'm really excited about this presentation. Although I am an atheist, I have always taken a strong academic interest in religion. My undergraduate majors were religious studies and psychology, and then I went to law school where I just devoured all things First Amendment. So I wanna thank Rehumanize International for giving me this wonderful opportunity to, to geek out with an audience. You have probably seen headlines about satanist groups and pro-abortion Jewish synagogues filing lawsuits against pro-life legislation planning that it violates their religious freedom. And maybe you've thought, well, that's ridiculous. You can't just kill somebody and say, Oh, but it's my religion. And if that was your reaction, Your intuition is correct. I am going to conclude that these lawsuits, these lawsuits ought to fail. But to discuss this issue intelligently beyond just our intuitive reactions requires understanding some key concepts of religious liberty law. So, this session is your crash course. I have five housekeeping matters before I begin. One, I have a lot of citations. You can find all of them in the most recent post at secular pro-life dot org slash blog. I've also dropped it in the chat, and if you're watching the later recording, there should be a link in the description. Two. A disclaimer. I am a attorney. I am not your attorney. This presentation is for general educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should contact a lawyer who's licensed in your jurisdiction to give you advice that's tailored to your situation. Number three, I realized that this conference attracts attendees. From around the world. In fact, I think I saw a poll earlier that about a quarter of you are from outside of the United States of America. I am focused here. This presentation is specifically about US law. Number four. If you have questions or comments, please put them in the Q and A tab. I'll circle back to them at the end if we have time. If you put them in the general chat tab, I might miss them. So please use that Q and A tab. Finally, number five. This session is going to touch on quite a few beliefs. Satanism Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Santeria, Evangelical Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses. In the Immortal words of Stefan from Saturday Night Live, this club has everything. If you happen to belong to any of the religious communities I just mentioned, I apologize in advance for how cursory and surface level my comments are going. You could devote a lifetime of study to any one of the religions I mentioned, and many people have. We have 45 minutes. It is what it is. And I'm sorry. So all of those housekeeping matters are done. Let us dive in with a Native American church and the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon versus Smith. That's mouthful. We usually just say employment division versus Smith. Mr. Smith ingested peyote for sacramental purposes during a Native American ceremony. Somehow his employer, a drug rehab center, found out about that and fired him. He applied for state unemployment benefits and he was denied. Oregon's position was using hallucinogens is illegal in our state. You used them. There is no religious exception, so it's your own damn fault you lost your job. We're not paying you unemployment. Mr. Smith argued that this violated his first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The case went all the way to the us Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled against him. The court supported Oregon's position. Their reasoning, and I'm paraphrasing here, Was, what are you nuts? We can't start making religious exceptions to drug laws. Every heroin addict in the country is going to take advantage of that. Laws would mean absolutely nothing. It would be chaos . So he lost, he lost his case. And the legal standard that was announced in Smith was that if a generally applicable, incidentally burdens religious exercise that is not a First Amendment violation. The law will be upheld and the state does not have to create an exception or an accommodation for that religious person. So what does the Supreme Court mean by generally applicable law? The best way to illustrate that is with a counter. Let's talk about Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye versus city of Hialeah. I love this case, not just because it's fun to say, although it it definitely is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I also just find it super interesting and my favorite law professor Douglas Laycock, happens to represent the church. So, first some background. This is where Santeria makes an appearance. And if your only familiarity with Santeria is the Sublime song, you have excellent musical taste. Don't practice Santeria ain't got no crystal ball — just don't pop a cap in Sancho, this is a consistent life ethic conference. By the way, I have no way of knowing if my stupid jokes are landing. So please, please be gentle. Santeria is most commonly practiced in Cuba. It arose from the interaction of African religions brought by enslaved people, and Catholicism brought by colonizers. When Cuban American refugees settled in South Florida, they brought Santeria with them. Santeria worship sometimes involves ritual animal sacrifice, which makes it a very foreign and objectionable, scenario to a white American audience. When a Santeria priest announced that he was opening the Church of the Lukumi Babalu in Hialeah, a Santeria congregation, it did not go over well. As the Supreme Court put it in its opinion, the prospect of a Santeria church in their midst was distressing to many members of the Hialeah community. And the announcement of the plans to open a santaria church in Hialeah prompted the city council to hold an emergency public session on June 9, 1987. That session and some later ones produced numerous resolutions and ordinances, which taken together prohibited the Santeria animal sacrifices. So this went up to the US Supreme Court. And the, the justice said the justices had no trouble figuring out that this was not a generally applicable law. It was a unanimous decision. The city argued, Hey, they we're just promoting animal welfare, and we have legitimate public health concerns as far as the animal remains go. But that was unconvincing because the ordinance. Were just riddled with exceptions for commercial meat production, for hunting, for pest control, and even for kosher slaughter. The court called it a religious gerrymander. I'll quote again from the opinion. The net result of the gerrymander is that few, if any, killings of animals are prohibited other than Santeria's s. Which is prescribed because it occurs during a ritual or ceremony, and its primary purpose is to make an offering to the Orishas, not food consumption. Indeed, careful drafting insured that although Santeria sacrifice is prohibited, killings that are no more necessary or humane in almost all other circumstances are unpunished. In other words, this law was discriminatory. And since the law was not generally applicable, The Smith's standard did not apply. Instead, the court used a much tougher standard, what we call strict scrutiny. There must be a compelling interest in support of the law, and the law must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest with the least religious burden possible. Remember that test: compelling interest, narrowly tailored. That's strict scrutiny. And there's a saying in the legal community: strict in theory, fatal in fact. Meaning hardly anything is going to pass the strict scrutiny test. Hialeah's anti sacrifice — anti sacrifice law, certainly did not, and the church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye emerged victorious. So at this point you might be wondering how this is relevant to anti-abortion laws. After all, we aren't targeting a particular religion. We didn't convene an emergency city — city council session to ban the satanic abortion ritual. We aren't trying to save only the babies conceived by mothers of a particular faith group. We wanna save as many babies as humanly possible. That's how pro-life laws are written. They're broad. They're generally applicable. Yes. Yes. That, that is right. However, The American public really did not like the outcome in Employment Division versus Smith. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle felt that Smith should have won that case, and it's not hard to see why. Right? He's a very sympathetic plaintiff. He wasn't hurting anybody. Native American use of peyote is thousands of years older than the United States itself. The war on drugs really has run a muck here. Why couldn't have Org — why couldn't Oregon have just made an exception for him? Don't we have freedom of religion in this country? And that was bipartisan sentiment at the time. So Congress passed a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. And what RFRA did was take that compelling interest, strict scrutiny test that was used in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye and say that's going to be the test for all religious freedom claims, including claims for an exception to a generally applicable law. Now, the federal RFRA only applies to federal laws, but almost half of the states enacted their own state level RFRA. That includes much of the south and also some deep blue New England states. The end result is that whether you are going to take more of a Smith approach or more of a church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye approach depends on where you live. I told you that RFRA was a bipartisan sentiment at the time. Not so much now. Over the years, increasingly high profile RFRA claims involve L G B T issues. For instance, conservative Christian florists seeking exceptions from anti-discrimination laws so that they can refuse to serve same sex weddings. RFRA itself didn't change, but it acquired this anti-gay connotation that left a lot of liberals with a sour taste in their mouths. And like so many other issues, opinions about RFRA grew more and more partisan, more and more polarized. And then the Supreme Court decided Burwell versus Hobby Lobby. This was a huge RFRA case. It was only eight years ago. It got a ton of press and I'm sure many of you already know all about it. But I'm gonna summarize it. So as part of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, whatever you wanna call it, I don't care. Employers of a certain size were required to provide contraceptives — coverage for various contraceptives with no copay. Hobby lobby did not object to most of the contraceptive methods on the list, but it identified four that it said weren't really contraceptives, that that was a misnomer. These were really abortifacients. They weren't preventing conception, they were preventing a newly conceived embryo from implanting. Hobby Lobby considered that to be an early abortion, and the company owners' Evangelical Christian faith would not allow them to be complicit in funding their employees abortions. Hobby Lobby brought a case under RFRA. The Supreme Court used that two part strict scrutiny test. Remember: compelling interest and narrowly tailored. The court assumed that the government does have a compelling interest in ensuring access to contraception. It was that second part of the test whether the law is narrowly tailored to advance the compelling interests by the least restrictive means, which is where the contraceptive mandate failed. And that was largely because a religious exception already exists. The Department of Health and Human Services, HHS had created an exception, had had given accommodations to churches and religious non-profits that had a problem with funding contraceptives. In those cases, the government covered the cost without the employer's involvement, thus advancing the compelling interest in contraceptive access without a religious burden. So the accommodation was obviously possible. It was being done. It's just that HHS would not extend that accommodation to Hobby Lobby on the ground that Hobby Lobby was a for profit company. A slim majority of the justices, five to four, said that under RFRA, that doesn't matter. For-profit or nonprofit status doesn't matter. So Hobby Lobby got its exception from the contraceptive mandate. The mandate itself was not struck down, by the way. It's still in effect, albeit with greater, broader, religious exceptions than HHS wanted. Women are still getting their pills. Sky didn't fall, but plenty of people were convinced that the sky was falling and RFRA took another hit in the court of public opinion. So the religious liberty challenges to pro-life laws that we're seeing today are largely RFRA lawsuits. When you read the press about them, the narrative is basically, Ha ha ha, conservatives we're using your religion law against you. Like it's some kind of Gotcha. Hopefully by virtue of this presentation, you understand why that take is ahistorical. But forget the press. Let's take a fair look at the lawsuits themselves, starting with the Satanists. First of all, to correct a myth, Satanists, do not literally worship Satan or even believe in the existence of Satan. Satanism is a naturalistic system, but you do not necessarily need a deity to qualify as a religion under the First Amendment. Sincerely held Moral beliefs will suffice. For purposes of today, satanism is a religion, and Satanists provide a useful public service, in my view, keeping local governments in compliance with the establishment clause. I see you've, put up a 10 Commandments monument. Where do we apply to erect our statue to Baphomet? It's those, it's those guys. You, you've seen the satanists. One of the better known Satanist communities is the Satanic Temple, which follows seven tenets. The first tenet is one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with roots, in accordance with reason. Unfortunately, that noble tenant goes straight out the window when it comes to abortion. In that case, they emphasize the third tenet: one's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone. Classic sovereign zone. The Satanic abortion ritual involves reciting and contemplating that third tenet while getting an abortion. For the purpose of casting off guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that the satanist may be experiencing about the abortion. So the argument is not that abortion is a required part of Satanic practice. It's not like making a hodge. They're not sacrificing babies to earn points. That's not what's going on here. The argument is just that if a satanist is going to have abortion, this is the ritual that goes along with it. And by restricting abortion, you're also restricting the ritual. The Jewish lawsuits, by contrast, Argue that Jewish law actually requires abortion, at least in some circumstances. For instance, the complaint brought against Florida's 15 week ban, which is still pending. That complaint asserts that late term abortion is required under Jewish law, if necessary, to promote the woman's mental wellbeing, which obviously goes far beyond Florida's normal health of the mother exception. To be abundantly clear, that is not a universal interpretation of Jewish law. Those plaintiffs do not speak for all Jews. There are pro-life jews, and Jews are welcome at this conference. Let's assume that we are in a RFRA jurisdiction. If a state wants its pro-life laws to apply universally without granting an exception to anyone who claims a religious freedom to abort, remember what the state has to. One, the law is supported by a compelling interest. And two, the law is narrowly tailored to advance that compelling interest with the least possible burden to religious exercise. We all know what the compelling interest is. It's human life. The plaintiffs will say, Not to our religion, it's not. And I say, Bring on that debate. The science of life at fertilization is settled. And when you read the Dobbs opinion, I don't think you can escape the conclusion that the government now has a legally compelling interest in preventing abortions. Is there any way to promote that compelling interest without creating a religious clash? Not that I see. One day with the development of artificial, artificial wombs? Maybe. That, that would be great. But with current technology, no. So I believe that anti-abortion laws should survive a RFRA challenge. They survive strict scrutiny. The lawsuits will fail. But Kelsey, someone asks, What about strict in theory, fatal in fact? Thank you, person who has been paying attention. You should be skeptical. Can I point to any specific legal precedent that a state's interest in, in protecting human life, and in particular young human life, and preventing human death, can trump a religiously motivated medical decision? Well, folks, I promised you Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm a woman of my word. Several bible verses prohibit eating blood and instruct Israelites to remove blood from their meat. Jehovah's Witnesses interpret those versions to prohibit not only eating blood through the mouth and digestion, but any consumption of blood, including taking blood intravenously. They oppose blood transfusions on that religious ground. This belief is very sincerely held. Many Jehovah's Witnesses would rather die than accept a blood transfusion. Many have proved it. Normally, we trust parents to make medical decisions for their children, but when Jehovah's Witness parents refuse to allow life saving blood transfusions for their kids, authorities often intervene. And when that happens, the parents go to court demanding vindication of their religious liberty. There's whole line of cases about this going back decades. And most of them cite this powerful quote from the Supreme Court case of Prince versus Massachusetts. Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow that they are free in identical circumstances to make martyrs of their children. Oddly enough, Prince didn't involve blood transfusion or any other life or death issue. Prince was about a Jehovah's Witness who had her daughter, selling religious pamphlets late at night in violation of a child labor law. But the Supreme Court's rhetorical flourish about making martyrs of your children made it clear how it would come down in a blood transfusion case. And courts across the country took that unsubtle hint. For example, a Washington Court rejected a Jehovah's Witness blood transfusion lawsuit on the compelling authority of Prince. An Ohio Court wrote, no longer can parents virtually exercise the power of life or death over their children. Nor may they abandon him, deny him proper parental care, neglect or refuse to provide him with proper and necessary subsistence education, medical or surgical care, or other care necessary for his health, morals, or wellbeing. And while they may, under certain circumstances, deprive him of his liberty or his property, under no circumstances, with or without due process, with or without religious sanction, are they free to deprive him of his life. That same court went on to say the parents in this case have a perfect right to worship as they please and believe what they please. They enjoy complete freedom of religion, but this right of theirs ends where somebody else's right begins. Their child is a human being in his own right with a soul and body of his own. He has rights of his own. The right to live and grow up without disfigurement. Okay. You're thinking those were all born children. Okay. Allow me to introduce you to the New Jersey case of Hoener versus Bertinato. Mr. And Mrs. Bertinato were Jehovah's Witnesses. Mrs. Bertinato was pregnant with her fourth child. This was an issue of RH incompatibility. I am not qualified to explain that in any detail, so I'll just quote the court. Her first child was born without the necessity of blood transfusions and is a normal child. This accords with the medical testimony at the hearing that the mother's RH blood condition adversely affects the second and subsequent children, but rarely is harmful for the harmful to the first born. Second child needed a blood transfusion immediately. The parents refused and the baby's doctors filed an emergency petition. The court briefly placed that baby in state custody just long enough to accomplish the blood transfusion. The child survived, and the child was returned to the parents. I'll quote again. Gloria Bertinato's third pregnancy resulted in a baby who also — excuse me. Gloria Bertinato's third pregnancy resulted in a baby who admittedly also needed a blood transfusion to save its life, but defendants again refused to permit this on religious grounds. No legal proceedings were instituted to compel the transfusion. The infant died. For baby number four, the county would not allow that tragedy to be repeated. They were ready. Officials filed their lawsuit before the child was born, to ensure that a blood transfusion could occur. The lawsuit, quote, charges that the defendants, by their refusal to authorize the transfusions, are endangering the life of the unborn child, and are therefore neglecting to provide it with proper protection, in violation of New Jersey law. The court acknowledged that the parents' religious objections were sincere. But the parents' constitutional freedom of religion, although accorded the greatest possible respect, must bend to the paramount interest of the state to act in order to preserve the welfare of a child and its right to survive. The court cited Prince and various other Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion cases, and then it asked, should the outcome be any different because this child is still in the womb? And the answer was a resounding no. This was pre-roe. So the court embraced the science and stated medical authority recognizes that an unborn child is a distinct biological entity from the time of conception, and many branches of the law afford the unborn child protection throughout the period of gestation. Of course, in the Dobbs era, that protection is finally being restored. A pro-abortion American is free to embrace a religious belief that human life does not begin at fertilization, but she is not free to make a martyr of her child. That concludes my prepared remarks. I appreciate your time, and I look forward to answering your questions. Um, Elizabeth asked, what was the name of this case? I don't know which case you're referring to. All of the cases are in that citation, that link I gave at the beginning. And you should be able to, hold on. Are you talking about the most recent case I was talked? The, the last case I mentioned, Hoener, H O E N E R, versus Bertinato was the case with the, the unborn child of Jehovah's Witness. Love all the jokes in geek. Thank you, . I, I know that we, we cover some dark topics at the Rehumanize Conference. I'm a big believer in, trying to lighten the mood. I don't see much in Q and A tab, so I'm just gonna scroll back through the chat tab. Let me see if there's anything here. , As a fellow lawyer, I feel that caveat to my core. Yes. Thank you, Leah. Um, Oh my God. . Sorry. The poor, poor dog. Okay. Jews have been pro-life for millennia, so Yeah. I, I agree. Joey. Thank you, joey, for rick rolling us . Okay. Um. Ben says, these seem like really strong precedents, especially because some of them are arguably about letting die rather than killing and are thus even stronger than what you'd need in the abortion case. Excellent point, Ben. Yes, I, I certainly, hope that the courts see it the same way. The, the downside to the Jehovahs Witness precedence is that they are older and they are not Supreme Court precedents. But as I mentioned, the, the Supreme Court precedent in Prince, although not about blood transfusions, has, has largely been, taken up in that line of cases. And I think it would, still function in the same way in the unlikely event that one of these religious freedom abortion cases makes its way all the way to our highest court. How would you summarize this to say 240 characters? Like to tweet at Catholics for Choice? You might need a thread , or you can just, link to the eventual video of this presentation. I believe Rehumanize is going to make this footage available, and then we'll get the closed captions going and put it up on YouTube, hopefully within the next few weeks. But yeah, more, more generally, I think, the, I don't know, maybe I should start tweeting at Catholics for Choice about this. What are you seeing in the legal field regarding RFRA changing its function post Roe? I don't know that it's really changing its function necessarily. So some of the plaintiffs, and particularly the satanist plaintiffs, I think are bringing these lawsuits, not solely because they're pro-abortion, although they are — I think they would also, as a, as a strategic matter, like to push on RFRA. I think I, and I think that's why we're seeing the press around it that we're seeing. This is like — even if they were to lose and they, they have to know that they're likely to lose, this is, this is a press thing and this is a, a matter of, trying to, get, get some more public opposition to RFRA. So. I, I don't, I haven't seen a whole lot of traction on that front. I haven't seen any legislatures, taking RFRA off their books, but you never know. . David asks, How long, how do you do your legal prep? Sorry, I'm struggling to read this because other things keep popping up. How do you do your legal research and how long does it take? Did you know most of these cases offhand or did you have to look them up? So I knew some of the big ones offhand. I knew. Employment Division v Smith. I knew Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I knew Prince vs. Massachusetts. I knew Hobby Lobby. You know, like I, I refreshed my memory by rereading those opinions, but I knew that that was where I needed to start. And then I did have to do some additional research, when it came to the, the pen — the pending lawsuits, and also the Jehovah's Witness line of cases. I, I, because I am a practicing attorney, I have access to Westlaw, which is the, legal database. That was very helpful. And, you know, also just, I, you know, I started by just doing a general search for law review articles about Jehovah's Witness of blood transfusion that compiled some of the cases. And that was, that was a good start. And I, was definitely working on this presentation as late as last night. So , I'm glad it came together. I am a better procrastinator. But that's, yeah, that's how it all happened. Let's see. Ben asks, Apart from law, what do you think about the ethical argument from religious freedom or religious pluralism, that being pro-life depends on controversial slash contested views about the grounds of personal identity and dignity. And so no one view should be legislated for by a pluralist society. The problem is that your, your law is going to pick a line. That's what laws do. If. That, that that argument, that poor pluralism argument treats birth like it's a neutral line. It's not. The, the law is gonna pick a line and every line is gonna offend somebody . That, that's just, that's just life in a democracy. So I don't, I don't find that argument particularly, persuasive from our loyal opposition. My, I would go a step farther and say that the only neutral way to go about this is to say that, you know, human rights begin when human life begins. And that that has to be defined in a scientific way, rather than a philosophical way because, there, there's, you know, you all of these, different guideposts that are being posed. Bear a lot of resemblance to ensoulment, which would be an establishment of religion. I hope that makes sense. , Given your rationale, how would any abortion be legal without demonstrating an exceptional need such as life of the mother? I, I do oppose abortion other than for the life of the mother. Mother, excuse me. Under Dobbs, the state, it, it is still a state by state thing. I'm getting into — the 14th Amendment argument is definitely beyond the scope of what I can do in the next nine minutes. But the, so, the idea is that you're, you know, the people of a state, through their legislatures, demonstrate what the interests of the state are. Right? So Florida or, you know, let's, you know, take, take like Alabama, right? Alabama has, an active, pretty, pretty strong anti-abortion legislation post Dobbs. That is an indication that the state of Alabama has a compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting human life. California obviously does not think that it has that compelling interest, so that — I, I don't know if I'm answering your question. But I, I hope, I hope that helps. How can interested people get involved with Secular Pro-life and what are your current needs? Yeah, definitely you can get involved in Secular Pro-life. We are always in need of volunteers. We, look for people to write guest pieces on our blog. We look for translators. We wanna get our message out in languages other than English. You can email me, info@secularprolife.org, or you can email our executive director Monica at Monica, secularprolife.org and, get connected to some volunteer opportunities that way. And you can also donate, via our website or our Facebook page. In Canada not long ago, an immigrant couple were convicted of the honor killing of their daughter. The couple sincerely believed that it was their moral duty to kill their daughter, but the majority in Canada, fortunately in the case of that issue, and unfortunately perhaps some other issues imposed their views on the minority. Sometimes it is good to impose views — not a question, a comment supporting something you said. I, yeah, that, that's an excellent example. I would stick with the Jehovah's witness example, just because it's a little less inflammatory. . I, I'm not in the habit of, comparing pro-choice people to supporters of honor killings if I don't have to. I think the Jehovah's Witness comparison is, more diplomatic and civil. But on principle, yes, you are correct. The the same reasons that, you shouldn't be able to, claim a religious exemption to commit an honor killing are, are the same reasons that you shouldn't be able to claim a religious exemption to have abortion. Um, Yeah, neutrality just seems impossible here. No neutrality when lives are on the line. Oh. Maria wrote, We will be publishing a handful of the session recordings on our YouTube in the coming weeks, but all attendees should have immediate access to all the recordings for rewatch and hopin on Monday, and that access will last for a full year. All right. Thank you. Maria. I don't. I'm, I'm guessing that's only for people who bought a ticket, though. I don't think Catholics for Choice bought a ticket. It's their loss. It's their loss. Okay, we've got about five more minutes together and I think I went through everybody's questions we might end earlier, which is, a secular miracle for a conference like this. I see Leah is on Team Westlaw. Yes, Westlaw all the way. I don't use Lexus. Never have. Um, oh. And Herb says, Thank you. All right. Herb, did you wanna come into the presentation and say anything? I was gonna do that, and then I just realized I'm in the same room as Kane who is on a panel right now, so nevermind. I'm leaving Yes, Secular Miracle would be a great band name, absolutely Ray. Hmm. Can you maybe conscience rights for physicians? Oh, can I comment on that? It's a big problem here in Canada. I unfortunately don't know much at all about Canadian law. I don't, to my knowledge, Canada doesn't have something like RFRA. So I am unfortunately not the person to ask. But, yeah, RFRA certainly can be used, for conscience protections in, in some situations. That wasn't within the scope of what I was researching, for this presentation, but I have seen that anecdotally. Um, the danger there, of course is that, you're treating, objection to abortion as inherently religious, which it isn't , but, Okay. Anything else? Always heard Canada is pretty bad for conference rights. Yeah. Yeah. That, that's what I've heard also. Oh, something in the Q and A. Thank you. What do you think of efforts to argue for pro-life conclusions within religions on specifically religious grounds? Eg. Do you think Catholic should be arguing against Catholic for Choice? Primarily just using general moral argument. To avoid creating the impression that it's really a religious issue, or do you think there's a role for intra religious debates to be more well religious? I, I think that if you are part of a religious community, and members of your community are out doing stupid things or unethical things, you should go get your guy. That's, I, I have no problem with you using a religious argument with someone that you know to be religious. Now if you're in a public Twitter argument with Catholics for Choice, then maybe consider that you're not so much trying to persuade them. You're trying to persuade the audience. So in that case you might take a more ve route, but yeah, individually, like in a one on one or small group setting, if you are speaking with co-religionists, I don't have a problem with you, using a religious argument. That's your business. I'm, I'm an atheist. That's, that's not my realm at all. So something came up in chat. Con — that's the problem we're having. Conscience is always being framed as religious, but conscience is not itself exclusive to religion. Yeah. And so that kind of gets back to my point earlier about, satanism being considered a religion. And you, you can see that also in, consci— conscientious objector rules for military, you do not have to be, religious to, to claim, an interest in pacifism. I read about a pastor who has a ministry flying women from places where abortion is illegal to get abortions legally. That's just gross. Okay. I think we are done. Thank you all so much for your time. I am going to maybe hang out a little bit at the Secular Pro-Life Expo booth if anybody wants to continue this conversation. And, yeah. Thank, thank you so much for, for dropping in. I really, and, and for, for asking such thoughtful questions.  

“The Marine Corps cannot evade RFRA by defining the conditions of service to exclude the possibility of an accommodation.” Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved - visit www.LC.org 

GetReligion editor Terry Mattingly discusses “RFRA — A four-letter term journalists tend to avoid”

The House votes on a contraception bill, a new electoral college reform bill is coming before Congress, and military chaplains continue their fight for freedom from medical coercion… … and more on today’s CrossPolitic Daily News Brief. My name is Toby Sumpter and today is Friday, July 22, 2022. FLF Conference Plug: Folks, our upcoming Fight Laugh Feast Conference is just 4-months away from happening in Knoxville TN, October 6-8! Don't miss beer & psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers which includes George Gilder, Jared Longshore, Pastor Wilson, Dr. Ben Merkle, Pastor Toby, and we can’t say yet…also dont miss our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and stuff for the kids too…like jumpy castles and accidental infant baptisms! Also, did you know, you can save money, by signing up for a Club Membership. So, go to FightLaughFeast.com and sign up for a club membership and then register for the conference with that club discount. We can’t wait to fellowship, sing Psalms, and celebrate God’s goodness in Knoxville October 6-8. Sen. Blumenthal Thinks it’s Very important for congress to pass a bill guaranteeing access to drugs that prevent pregnancy. https://twitter.com/SenBlumenthal/status/1550216973199474688?s=20&t=atHLw9SjnQTHPyZrUIBPug 0:00-0:33 Meanwhile nations in Europe are already trying to incentivize couples to have more children because there is already a sansdemic, that is a growing population gap that is not replacing current population levels, leaving nations without workers. Turns out your need people to work and to provide, to have a thriving economy and nation. House votes to pass bill guaranteeing access to contraception https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/21/politics/contraception-access-house-vote/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2WKa07UvjlHP5qKWXPzgSm1ylUFA4JoREcolRudQTpD6e-nL7SviSLF1U The House voted Thursday to pass a bill that would guarantee access to contraception by protecting the right to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction. The final vote was 228-195. Eight Republicans crossed over to vote with Democrats. Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Fred Upton of Michigan, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, John Katko of New York, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Maria Salazar of Florida and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois joined all the Democrats in voting for the bill. Two Republicans, Reps. Bob Gibbs of Ohio and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, voted present, meaning they took no position either way on the bill The vote falls among action House Democrats are trying to take following the Supreme Court's decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. In that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately in a concurring opinion that the high court should reconsider "substantive due process precedents" in decisions, including Griswold v. Connecticut, that allows access to contraception. The Right to Contraception Act, introduced by Democratic Rep. Kathy Manning of North Carolina, aims to "protect a person's ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception," according to text of the bill. We should note that the text of the bill also includes “emergency contraceptives” in its list of what is included. Historically “emergency contraceptives” has also included chemicals intending to prevent or disrupt implantation of a fertilized egg. It should also be pointed out that some forms of oral contraception also include this as an intended function. Why would we trust Margaret Sanger and her descendants to give us good medicine? The mindless embrace of birth control by Christians got us into this mess. The White House said it "strongly supports" the bill in a statement Monday, adding "access to contraception is essential to ensuring all people have control over personal decisions about their own health, lives, and families." And making sure that we don’t have enough people to work productive jobs to provide for their families. This on the heels of Earlier this week, the House passed a bill that would enshrine protections for same-sex marriage into federal law, with 47 Republicans joining Democrats voting in favor of the bill. It is unclear whether the bill can pass the Senate where at least 10 Republicans are needed to side with Democrats to overcome the filibuster's 60-vote threshold. Redballoon Not so long ago, the American dream was alive and well. Employees who worked hard were rewarded, and employers looked for people who could do the job, not for people who had the right political views. RedBalloon.work is a job site designed to get us back to what made American businesses successful: free speech, hard work, and having fun. If you are a free speech employer who wants to hire employees who focus on their work and not identity politics, then post a job on RedBalloon. If you are an employee who is being censored at work or is being forced to comply with the current zeitgeist, post your resume on RedBalloon and look for a new job. redballoon.work, the job site where free speech is still alive! www.redballoon.work New Electoral College Count Reform Proposal https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-promising-new-electoral-count-act-reform-proposal/ The proposal takes the form of two bills. The first is sponsored by nine Republican senators (Susan Collins, Shelley Moore Capito, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Thom Tillis, and Todd Young) and seven Democratic senators (Joe Manchin, Ben Cardin, Chris Coons, Chris Murphy, Jeanne Shaheen, Kyrsten Sinema, and Mark Warner) and is focused on the Electoral Count Act itself. This bill clarifies that states must appoint presidential electors in accordance with the laws they each pass before election day and does away with the dangerously vague concept of a “failed election” in the original ECA. It requires that the governor of each state (or else another particular official specifically assigned this role by state law) be the person to certify the state’s slate of electors, to avoid the possibility of different officials sending different slates to Congress. It clarifies that the vice president’s role in counting electoral votes in Congress is purely ministerial and does not involve any sole decision-making authority. It raises the threshold for raising objections to a state’s electoral votes in Congress from one member of each house to one-fifth of the members of each house and narrows and clarifies the grounds for filing objections. And it allows for expedited federal judicial review of any challenges raised by a presidential candidate under already existing federal law to a state’s certification of its elections, but does not create any new right of action in federal court regarding state officials’ enforcement of state laws. Some Democrats wanted to go further, and give the federal courts more jurisdiction over the ways in which state officials enforce state election laws. This was a disastrously misguided idea, and it is very good that this proposal avoids any such path. This is a significant success for a number of Republicans who fought hard against that approach — particularly Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney. And it is the reason why I think this bill could get enough Republican votes to pass the Senate. The restraint shown in this proposal suggests this bipartisan group really wants to get these reforms enacted. The second bill, sponsored by most of the same senators as the first (with the exception of Republican senators Capito, Young, Sasse, and Graham) takes up some issues beyond the scope of the Electoral Count Act. It would increase the penalties for threatening election officials, improve the postal service’s procedures for handling mail-in ballots where those are allowed under state law, reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission, and increase the penalties for tampering with election records. These are modest reforms directed to modest problems, and the result is a bill that doesn’t do anything particularly important. If it’s necessary to get more Democrats to accept the restrained approach to ECA reform in the first bill, then I see no problem with it, and certainly some of what it proposes is worthwhile. Chaplains File Class Action Lawsuit Against DODhttps://uncoverdc.com/2022/07/21/vaccine-mandate-chaplains-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-dod/ Thirty-one military chaplains filed a class action lawsuit in May alleging the unconstitutional denial of religious accommodations relating to the vaccine mandate. The chaplains maintain they are protected by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Defendants in the case are the Department of Defense (DoD), several military branches, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, and the CDC. The lawsuit provides a fulsome review of the blatant, concerning changes in definitions and procedural rules to achieve politically driven agendas and goals that seemingly ignore service members’ most basic constitutional rights. Plaintiffs argue that the vaccine mandate and the military’s “no accommodation directive” are unconstitutional. Military chaplains who fail to comply with the vaccine mandate face “threat of disciplinary action” and “punitive discharge,” violating their “express statutory rights to follow their conscience as formed by their faith.” Defendants in the case contend the “venue is not proper,” Plaintiffs’ claims “are not ripe or justiciable prior to exhaustion of military remedies” (some requests have not yet been adjudicated), and the vaccine is the best remedy for “the health and readiness” of the military forces. The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) lays out in Section 533—the right of chaplains to conduct themselves according to their conscience or religious faith. Section 533 allows a chaplain to reject performing any duty that violates their conscience without repercussion or penalty. As the footnote on page 5 of the lawsuit explains, the genesis of the 2013 NDAA amendment grew out of social policy changes in 2012 during the Obama administration concerning “the repeal of the military ban on homosexual behavior and the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Defense of Marriage Act.” Chaplains at the time were concerned that they might have to perform wedding ceremonies that would violate their religious beliefs. Those protections were reinforced in both the 2016 and the 2018 NDAAs. Retired Army veteran Arthur A. Schulcz’s testimony filed on July 18, 2022, speaks poignantly to the difficulties of defining and implementing religious freedom policies in the military in recent years. He fought to properly define the role of chaplains in the military in December 2012, working with Congress in anticipation of amendments to the 2013 NDAA to “defend chaplains’ rights to authentically represent their faith to the military, especially in their speech.” He describes the discrimination many in the military have experienced over the years if they dared speak against the prevailing political agenda. The complaint states military chaplains are “unique military officers” because they are both commissioned officers and clergy. As such, they “raise unique statutory and constitutional religious liberty claims, in addition to the claims for systematic violations of service members’ RFRA and First Amendment rights that several courts have recently found Military Defendants likely committed.” The lawsuit states congressional authority concerning honoring and protecting military chaplains’ conscience and faith has been violated by the mandate. Chaplains are unique in their roles as service members because they are afforded additional First Amendment protections as a result of their clerical roles. It has to do with the potential violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” Psalm of the Day: St. Patrick’s Breastplate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SXXz5k_F_I&list=PL1C638E88FCA83B7A&index=22 0:18-1:24 Amen! This is Toby Sumpter with CrossPolitic News. Remember you can always find the links to our news stories and these psalms at crosspolitic dot com – just click on the daily news brief and follow the links. Or find them on our App: just search “Fight Laugh Feast” in your favorite app store and never miss a show. If this content is helpful to you, would you please consider becoming a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member? We are building a cancel-proof news and media network with Christ at the center, and we can’t do it without your help. Join today and get a $100 discount at the Fight Laugh Feast conference in Knoxville, TN Oct. 6-8, and have a great day.

The House votes on a contraception bill, a new electoral college reform bill is coming before Congress, and military chaplains continue their fight for freedom from medical coercion… … and more on today’s CrossPolitic Daily News Brief. My name is Toby Sumpter and today is Friday, July 22, 2022. FLF Conference Plug: Folks, our upcoming Fight Laugh Feast Conference is just 4-months away from happening in Knoxville TN, October 6-8! Don't miss beer & psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers which includes George Gilder, Jared Longshore, Pastor Wilson, Dr. Ben Merkle, Pastor Toby, and we can’t say yet…also dont miss our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and stuff for the kids too…like jumpy castles and accidental infant baptisms! Also, did you know, you can save money, by signing up for a Club Membership. So, go to FightLaughFeast.com and sign up for a club membership and then register for the conference with that club discount. We can’t wait to fellowship, sing Psalms, and celebrate God’s goodness in Knoxville October 6-8. Sen. Blumenthal Thinks it’s Very important for congress to pass a bill guaranteeing access to drugs that prevent pregnancy. https://twitter.com/SenBlumenthal/status/1550216973199474688?s=20&t=atHLw9SjnQTHPyZrUIBPug 0:00-0:33 Meanwhile nations in Europe are already trying to incentivize couples to have more children because there is already a sansdemic, that is a growing population gap that is not replacing current population levels, leaving nations without workers. Turns out your need people to work and to provide, to have a thriving economy and nation. House votes to pass bill guaranteeing access to contraception https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/21/politics/contraception-access-house-vote/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2WKa07UvjlHP5qKWXPzgSm1ylUFA4JoREcolRudQTpD6e-nL7SviSLF1U The House voted Thursday to pass a bill that would guarantee access to contraception by protecting the right to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction. The final vote was 228-195. Eight Republicans crossed over to vote with Democrats. Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Fred Upton of Michigan, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, John Katko of New York, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Maria Salazar of Florida and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois joined all the Democrats in voting for the bill. Two Republicans, Reps. Bob Gibbs of Ohio and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, voted present, meaning they took no position either way on the bill The vote falls among action House Democrats are trying to take following the Supreme Court's decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. In that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately in a concurring opinion that the high court should reconsider "substantive due process precedents" in decisions, including Griswold v. Connecticut, that allows access to contraception. The Right to Contraception Act, introduced by Democratic Rep. Kathy Manning of North Carolina, aims to "protect a person's ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception," according to text of the bill. We should note that the text of the bill also includes “emergency contraceptives” in its list of what is included. Historically “emergency contraceptives” has also included chemicals intending to prevent or disrupt implantation of a fertilized egg. It should also be pointed out that some forms of oral contraception also include this as an intended function. Why would we trust Margaret Sanger and her descendants to give us good medicine? The mindless embrace of birth control by Christians got us into this mess. The White House said it "strongly supports" the bill in a statement Monday, adding "access to contraception is essential to ensuring all people have control over personal decisions about their own health, lives, and families." And making sure that we don’t have enough people to work productive jobs to provide for their families. This on the heels of Earlier this week, the House passed a bill that would enshrine protections for same-sex marriage into federal law, with 47 Republicans joining Democrats voting in favor of the bill. It is unclear whether the bill can pass the Senate where at least 10 Republicans are needed to side with Democrats to overcome the filibuster's 60-vote threshold. Redballoon Not so long ago, the American dream was alive and well. Employees who worked hard were rewarded, and employers looked for people who could do the job, not for people who had the right political views. RedBalloon.work is a job site designed to get us back to what made American businesses successful: free speech, hard work, and having fun. If you are a free speech employer who wants to hire employees who focus on their work and not identity politics, then post a job on RedBalloon. If you are an employee who is being censored at work or is being forced to comply with the current zeitgeist, post your resume on RedBalloon and look for a new job. redballoon.work, the job site where free speech is still alive! www.redballoon.work New Electoral College Count Reform Proposal https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-promising-new-electoral-count-act-reform-proposal/ The proposal takes the form of two bills. The first is sponsored by nine Republican senators (Susan Collins, Shelley Moore Capito, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Thom Tillis, and Todd Young) and seven Democratic senators (Joe Manchin, Ben Cardin, Chris Coons, Chris Murphy, Jeanne Shaheen, Kyrsten Sinema, and Mark Warner) and is focused on the Electoral Count Act itself. This bill clarifies that states must appoint presidential electors in accordance with the laws they each pass before election day and does away with the dangerously vague concept of a “failed election” in the original ECA. It requires that the governor of each state (or else another particular official specifically assigned this role by state law) be the person to certify the state’s slate of electors, to avoid the possibility of different officials sending different slates to Congress. It clarifies that the vice president’s role in counting electoral votes in Congress is purely ministerial and does not involve any sole decision-making authority. It raises the threshold for raising objections to a state’s electoral votes in Congress from one member of each house to one-fifth of the members of each house and narrows and clarifies the grounds for filing objections. And it allows for expedited federal judicial review of any challenges raised by a presidential candidate under already existing federal law to a state’s certification of its elections, but does not create any new right of action in federal court regarding state officials’ enforcement of state laws. Some Democrats wanted to go further, and give the federal courts more jurisdiction over the ways in which state officials enforce state election laws. This was a disastrously misguided idea, and it is very good that this proposal avoids any such path. This is a significant success for a number of Republicans who fought hard against that approach — particularly Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney. And it is the reason why I think this bill could get enough Republican votes to pass the Senate. The restraint shown in this proposal suggests this bipartisan group really wants to get these reforms enacted. The second bill, sponsored by most of the same senators as the first (with the exception of Republican senators Capito, Young, Sasse, and Graham) takes up some issues beyond the scope of the Electoral Count Act. It would increase the penalties for threatening election officials, improve the postal service’s procedures for handling mail-in ballots where those are allowed under state law, reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission, and increase the penalties for tampering with election records. These are modest reforms directed to modest problems, and the result is a bill that doesn’t do anything particularly important. If it’s necessary to get more Democrats to accept the restrained approach to ECA reform in the first bill, then I see no problem with it, and certainly some of what it proposes is worthwhile. Chaplains File Class Action Lawsuit Against DODhttps://uncoverdc.com/2022/07/21/vaccine-mandate-chaplains-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-dod/ Thirty-one military chaplains filed a class action lawsuit in May alleging the unconstitutional denial of religious accommodations relating to the vaccine mandate. The chaplains maintain they are protected by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Defendants in the case are the Department of Defense (DoD), several military branches, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, and the CDC. The lawsuit provides a fulsome review of the blatant, concerning changes in definitions and procedural rules to achieve politically driven agendas and goals that seemingly ignore service members’ most basic constitutional rights. Plaintiffs argue that the vaccine mandate and the military’s “no accommodation directive” are unconstitutional. Military chaplains who fail to comply with the vaccine mandate face “threat of disciplinary action” and “punitive discharge,” violating their “express statutory rights to follow their conscience as formed by their faith.” Defendants in the case contend the “venue is not proper,” Plaintiffs’ claims “are not ripe or justiciable prior to exhaustion of military remedies” (some requests have not yet been adjudicated), and the vaccine is the best remedy for “the health and readiness” of the military forces. The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) lays out in Section 533—the right of chaplains to conduct themselves according to their conscience or religious faith. Section 533 allows a chaplain to reject performing any duty that violates their conscience without repercussion or penalty. As the footnote on page 5 of the lawsuit explains, the genesis of the 2013 NDAA amendment grew out of social policy changes in 2012 during the Obama administration concerning “the repeal of the military ban on homosexual behavior and the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Defense of Marriage Act.” Chaplains at the time were concerned that they might have to perform wedding ceremonies that would violate their religious beliefs. Those protections were reinforced in both the 2016 and the 2018 NDAAs. Retired Army veteran Arthur A. Schulcz’s testimony filed on July 18, 2022, speaks poignantly to the difficulties of defining and implementing religious freedom policies in the military in recent years. He fought to properly define the role of chaplains in the military in December 2012, working with Congress in anticipation of amendments to the 2013 NDAA to “defend chaplains’ rights to authentically represent their faith to the military, especially in their speech.” He describes the discrimination many in the military have experienced over the years if they dared speak against the prevailing political agenda. The complaint states military chaplains are “unique military officers” because they are both commissioned officers and clergy. As such, they “raise unique statutory and constitutional religious liberty claims, in addition to the claims for systematic violations of service members’ RFRA and First Amendment rights that several courts have recently found Military Defendants likely committed.” The lawsuit states congressional authority concerning honoring and protecting military chaplains’ conscience and faith has been violated by the mandate. Chaplains are unique in their roles as service members because they are afforded additional First Amendment protections as a result of their clerical roles. It has to do with the potential violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” Psalm of the Day: St. Patrick’s Breastplate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SXXz5k_F_I&list=PL1C638E88FCA83B7A&index=22 0:18-1:24 Amen! This is Toby Sumpter with CrossPolitic News. Remember you can always find the links to our news stories and these psalms at crosspolitic dot com – just click on the daily news brief and follow the links. Or find them on our App: just search “Fight Laugh Feast” in your favorite app store and never miss a show. If this content is helpful to you, would you please consider becoming a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member? We are building a cancel-proof news and media network with Christ at the center, and we can’t do it without your help. Join today and get a $100 discount at the Fight Laugh Feast conference in Knoxville, TN Oct. 6-8, and have a great day.

CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Wednesday May 11th, 2022. Intro this clip: https://twitter.com/johnwesleyreid/status/1524032799501697037 Justice Alito’s neighbor decided to blast “Tis So Sweet To Trust in Jesus” as pro-abortion protestors, outside of Alito’s home, shout something about wanting justice? Have you signed up for our show in Arizona…it is next week, what are you waiting for! Folks- we got some exciting news for the happenings going around here at CrossPolitic and the Fight Laugh Feast Network. First, starting May 30th, CrossPolitic will be moving to a daily show, airing every day at 6pm and of course dropping podcasts. Knox has been pushing us to do this for two years, and he has finally won that argument. So, get ready to tune into you number one nightly news and commentary source! Secondly, to make room for all this new production, the Daily News Brief will be going back to audio, which is where a bulk of our Daily News listeners were at anyways. Thirdly, we have a bunch of new club member benefits we are working on, including an updated website club portal and club only social media platform. So, those listeners who have been lingering in the background, join the club, the party is just getting started. And for our thousands of club members, thank you for staying with us, your continued support, and your prayers. We have a lot of work ahead of us, and this very much feels like a further up and further in moment. Now where was I. Oh that is right, the bloodlust for the abortion crowd is insanity, and you will be seeing unleashed insanity if Roe is overturned. After calling the LGBT to arm themselves, the Mayor of Chicago also promised that Chicago would become and abortion sanctuary. The call of violence is spreading and this pass Sunday a molotov cocktail was thrown into the Wisconsin Family Action offices. As the pro-abortion community found out about it, they decided to leave messages, and here is a compilation of some of those messages: https://notthebee.com/article/pro-life-wisconsin “​​(A) radical pro-abortion group named Jane’s Revenge is saying it was responsible and is threatening increasingly violent attacks that extend beyond Wisconsin if its demands are not met, writing, “Wisconsin is the first flashpoint, but we are all over the US, and we will issue no further warnings.” https://www.lifenews.com/2022/05/10/pro-abortion-group-says-it-firebombed-pro-life-office-promises-more-violence-nationwide-our-last-warning/ Plug Did you know that more than 75% of those raised in evangelical, Presbyterian, and Reformed churches don’t pursue any kind of Christian higher education? Surprising isn’t it. Cornerstone Work & Worldview Institute is seeking to provide a new, exciting, and affordable option for Christians. Their mission is to build Kingdom culture in the workplace by equipping their students in a Trinitarian worldview and vocational competencies. Their low-cost full-time program offers integrative course modules, internships, and mentoring so their students can finish debt-free with vocational preparation, a robust faith, and financial potential to build strong godly families and homes rooted in their communities and churches long-term. Visit their website at www.cornerstonework.org to find out more about enrolling. Elon Musk would let President Trump back on Twitter and cited the ban was "foolish to the extreme”. Roll clip: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1524085282366177283 Friends, we have tons of military personnel that listen to our shows, and they keep us in the loop about what is going on, on the inside as they fight for their careers against the forced vaccination policies. Well right now there is an important court case in front of a federal district court judge in Omaha, that if the judge would rule in favor of religious exemptions, it would apply to the Air Force nationwide. According to the Omaha World Herald: https://omaha.com/news/state-and-regional/offutt-airmen-ask-judge-to-block-covid-vaccine-mandate-citing-religious-beliefs/article_8e96601c-cd89-11ec-b0a7-1f525a4310d5.html “Three current or former Offutt airmen who have refused the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds asked a federal district court judge in Omaha on Monday to stop the Air Force from discharging or otherwise punishing them. Capt. Ian McGee, an RC-135 instructor pilot with the Offutt-based 55th Wing, said he applied for a religious exemption eight months ago but hasn’t received a response from his chain of command. He expects it to be denied, as the Air Force has denied nearly all of the more than 7,800 airmen who have applied for them under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, known as RFRA. McGee said he would give up his nine-year military career rather than be injected with a vaccine tested with cell lines taken many years ago from aborted fetuses. “It goes against my sincerely held religious beliefs as a born-again Christian,” McGee testified. “My resolve is to stay with my relationship with Jesus Christ.” The three airmen are part of a larger group of 36 — including active-duty, National Guard and reserves — who filed suit in U.S. District Court in Nebraska in March seeking to overturn the mandate issued by the Pentagon last August. They argue it is a violation of their First Amendment rights. They are represented by former Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach and a team of lawyers from the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank organized last year by several top advisers in the administration of former President Donald Trump. Kris Kobach “blasted the elaborate multi-level review of the applications for religious exemptions, alleging that more than 7,500 have been denied and only 46 granted. And the ones granted were only for airmen who were within six months of retirement.” Be praying for our people in the military. This is stressful on their families, careers, and the mainstream media is giving them no voice. CrossPolitic is glad to do our part! Meanwhile, the Republican Senate is making some chess moves on behalf of our friends fighting in the military. According to the Military Times: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/coronavirus/2022/05/10/bill-would-mandate-honorable-discharge-for-all-troops-who-refuse-covid-vaccine-mandate/ A “proposal — led by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and backed by 13 other GOP colleagues” Would require Defense officials “to grant honorable dismissals to nearly all troops who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine and grant waivers to troops with “natural immunity” to the virus under new legislation introduced by Republican senators on Tuesday.” It “would also mandate that military leaders “make every effort to retain members of the Armed Forces who are not vaccinated” and broaden religious exemptions for the vaccine mandate.” Cruz said: ““It is absolutely unacceptable that [President Joe Biden’s] administration is trying to coerce our men and women in uniform to violate their conscience and religious beliefs, let alone on an issue as polarizing as the COVID-19 vaccine.” Last month, defense officials told Congress that about 3,400 troops have been involuntarily separated from service for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine, mandated last fall for all military members. Of that group, about 70% have received general discharges, a designation that allows them to receive most veterans benefits and potentially rejoin the military at a later date. The other 30% have received honorable discharges. Congress last year forbade military leaders from issuing dishonorable discharges for vaccine refusal.” Lies, Propaganda, Story Telling, and the Serrated Edge: This year our national conference is in Knoxville, TN October 6th-8th. The theme of this year’s conference is Lies, Propaganda, Storytelling and the Serrated Edge. Satan is the father of lies, and the mother of those lies is a government who has rejected God. We have especially been lied to these last two years, and the COVIDpanic has been one of the central mechanisms that our government has used to lie to us and to grab more power. Because Christians have not been reading their bibles, we are susceptible to lies and weak in our ability to fight these lies. God has given us His word to fight Satan and his lies, and we need to recover all of God’s word, its serrated edge and all. Mark your calendars for October 6th-8th, as we fight, laugh and feast with fellowship, beer and Psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers, hanging with our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and more. Early bird tickets sale now!. Lastly, and I actually like this play here. DeSantis Signs Bill Requiring High Schools to Observe ‘Victims of Communism Day’ https://www.ntd.com/desantis-signs-bill-requiring-high-schools-to-observe-victims-of-communism-day_776951.html According to the NTD: “Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill Monday that requires “Victims of Communism Day” to be observed annually in public high schools across the state. The bill, known as HB 395, requires public schools to tell students about genocides, famines, and persecutions under communist regimes, including the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Soviet Union. The bill passed the Florida House and Senate unanimously earlier this year. “We want to make sure that every year folks in Florida, but particularly our students, will learn about the evils of communism, the dictators that have led communist regimes, and the hundreds of millions of individuals who suffered and continue to suffer under the weight of this discredited ideology,” DeSantis said Monday morning. The Victims of Communism organization has estimated that communist regimes have caused the deaths of at least 100 million people via political purges, religious persecutions, mass starvation, and other crimes against humanity during the 20th century. Chief among those regimes is the CCP, which is believed to have left around 80 million Chinese people dead.” This is Gabriel Rench with Crosspolitic News. Support Rowdy Christian media by joining our club at fightlaughfeast.com, downloading our App, and head to our annual Fight Laugh Feast Events. If this content is helpful to you, would you please consider becoming a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member? We are trying to build a cancel-proof media platform, and we need your help. Join today and get a discount at the Fight Laugh Feast conference in Knoxville, TN and have a great day. Have a great day. Lord bless

CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Wednesday May 11th, 2022. Intro this clip: https://twitter.com/johnwesleyreid/status/1524032799501697037 Justice Alito’s neighbor decided to blast “Tis So Sweet To Trust in Jesus” as pro-abortion protestors, outside of Alito’s home, shout something about wanting justice? Have you signed up for our show in Arizona…it is next week, what are you waiting for! Folks- we got some exciting news for the happenings going around here at CrossPolitic and the Fight Laugh Feast Network. First, starting May 30th, CrossPolitic will be moving to a daily show, airing every day at 6pm and of course dropping podcasts. Knox has been pushing us to do this for two years, and he has finally won that argument. So, get ready to tune into you number one nightly news and commentary source! Secondly, to make room for all this new production, the Daily News Brief will be going back to audio, which is where a bulk of our Daily News listeners were at anyways. Thirdly, we have a bunch of new club member benefits we are working on, including an updated website club portal and club only social media platform. So, those listeners who have been lingering in the background, join the club, the party is just getting started. And for our thousands of club members, thank you for staying with us, your continued support, and your prayers. We have a lot of work ahead of us, and this very much feels like a further up and further in moment. Now where was I. Oh that is right, the bloodlust for the abortion crowd is insanity, and you will be seeing unleashed insanity if Roe is overturned. After calling the LGBT to arm themselves, the Mayor of Chicago also promised that Chicago would become and abortion sanctuary. The call of violence is spreading and this pass Sunday a molotov cocktail was thrown into the Wisconsin Family Action offices. As the pro-abortion community found out about it, they decided to leave messages, and here is a compilation of some of those messages: https://notthebee.com/article/pro-life-wisconsin “​​(A) radical pro-abortion group named Jane’s Revenge is saying it was responsible and is threatening increasingly violent attacks that extend beyond Wisconsin if its demands are not met, writing, “Wisconsin is the first flashpoint, but we are all over the US, and we will issue no further warnings.” https://www.lifenews.com/2022/05/10/pro-abortion-group-says-it-firebombed-pro-life-office-promises-more-violence-nationwide-our-last-warning/ Plug Did you know that more than 75% of those raised in evangelical, Presbyterian, and Reformed churches don’t pursue any kind of Christian higher education? Surprising isn’t it. Cornerstone Work & Worldview Institute is seeking to provide a new, exciting, and affordable option for Christians. Their mission is to build Kingdom culture in the workplace by equipping their students in a Trinitarian worldview and vocational competencies. Their low-cost full-time program offers integrative course modules, internships, and mentoring so their students can finish debt-free with vocational preparation, a robust faith, and financial potential to build strong godly families and homes rooted in their communities and churches long-term. Visit their website at www.cornerstonework.org to find out more about enrolling. Elon Musk would let President Trump back on Twitter and cited the ban was "foolish to the extreme”. Roll clip: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1524085282366177283 Friends, we have tons of military personnel that listen to our shows, and they keep us in the loop about what is going on, on the inside as they fight for their careers against the forced vaccination policies. Well right now there is an important court case in front of a federal district court judge in Omaha, that if the judge would rule in favor of religious exemptions, it would apply to the Air Force nationwide. According to the Omaha World Herald: https://omaha.com/news/state-and-regional/offutt-airmen-ask-judge-to-block-covid-vaccine-mandate-citing-religious-beliefs/article_8e96601c-cd89-11ec-b0a7-1f525a4310d5.html “Three current or former Offutt airmen who have refused the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds asked a federal district court judge in Omaha on Monday to stop the Air Force from discharging or otherwise punishing them. Capt. Ian McGee, an RC-135 instructor pilot with the Offutt-based 55th Wing, said he applied for a religious exemption eight months ago but hasn’t received a response from his chain of command. He expects it to be denied, as the Air Force has denied nearly all of the more than 7,800 airmen who have applied for them under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, known as RFRA. McGee said he would give up his nine-year military career rather than be injected with a vaccine tested with cell lines taken many years ago from aborted fetuses. “It goes against my sincerely held religious beliefs as a born-again Christian,” McGee testified. “My resolve is to stay with my relationship with Jesus Christ.” The three airmen are part of a larger group of 36 — including active-duty, National Guard and reserves — who filed suit in U.S. District Court in Nebraska in March seeking to overturn the mandate issued by the Pentagon last August. They argue it is a violation of their First Amendment rights. They are represented by former Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach and a team of lawyers from the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank organized last year by several top advisers in the administration of former President Donald Trump. Kris Kobach “blasted the elaborate multi-level review of the applications for religious exemptions, alleging that more than 7,500 have been denied and only 46 granted. And the ones granted were only for airmen who were within six months of retirement.” Be praying for our people in the military. This is stressful on their families, careers, and the mainstream media is giving them no voice. CrossPolitic is glad to do our part! Meanwhile, the Republican Senate is making some chess moves on behalf of our friends fighting in the military. According to the Military Times: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/coronavirus/2022/05/10/bill-would-mandate-honorable-discharge-for-all-troops-who-refuse-covid-vaccine-mandate/ A “proposal — led by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and backed by 13 other GOP colleagues” Would require Defense officials “to grant honorable dismissals to nearly all troops who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine and grant waivers to troops with “natural immunity” to the virus under new legislation introduced by Republican senators on Tuesday.” It “would also mandate that military leaders “make every effort to retain members of the Armed Forces who are not vaccinated” and broaden religious exemptions for the vaccine mandate.” Cruz said: ““It is absolutely unacceptable that [President Joe Biden’s] administration is trying to coerce our men and women in uniform to violate their conscience and religious beliefs, let alone on an issue as polarizing as the COVID-19 vaccine.” Last month, defense officials told Congress that about 3,400 troops have been involuntarily separated from service for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine, mandated last fall for all military members. Of that group, about 70% have received general discharges, a designation that allows them to receive most veterans benefits and potentially rejoin the military at a later date. The other 30% have received honorable discharges. Congress last year forbade military leaders from issuing dishonorable discharges for vaccine refusal.” Lies, Propaganda, Story Telling, and the Serrated Edge: This year our national conference is in Knoxville, TN October 6th-8th. The theme of this year’s conference is Lies, Propaganda, Storytelling and the Serrated Edge. Satan is the father of lies, and the mother of those lies is a government who has rejected God. We have especially been lied to these last two years, and the COVIDpanic has been one of the central mechanisms that our government has used to lie to us and to grab more power. Because Christians have not been reading their bibles, we are susceptible to lies and weak in our ability to fight these lies. God has given us His word to fight Satan and his lies, and we need to recover all of God’s word, its serrated edge and all. Mark your calendars for October 6th-8th, as we fight, laugh and feast with fellowship, beer and Psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers, hanging with our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and more. Early bird tickets sale now!. Lastly, and I actually like this play here. DeSantis Signs Bill Requiring High Schools to Observe ‘Victims of Communism Day’ https://www.ntd.com/desantis-signs-bill-requiring-high-schools-to-observe-victims-of-communism-day_776951.html According to the NTD: “Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill Monday that requires “Victims of Communism Day” to be observed annually in public high schools across the state. The bill, known as HB 395, requires public schools to tell students about genocides, famines, and persecutions under communist regimes, including the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Soviet Union. The bill passed the Florida House and Senate unanimously earlier this year. “We want to make sure that every year folks in Florida, but particularly our students, will learn about the evils of communism, the dictators that have led communist regimes, and the hundreds of millions of individuals who suffered and continue to suffer under the weight of this discredited ideology,” DeSantis said Monday morning. The Victims of Communism organization has estimated that communist regimes have caused the deaths of at least 100 million people via political purges, religious persecutions, mass starvation, and other crimes against humanity during the 20th century. Chief among those regimes is the CCP, which is believed to have left around 80 million Chinese people dead.” This is Gabriel Rench with Crosspolitic News. Support Rowdy Christian media by joining our club at fightlaughfeast.com, downloading our App, and head to our annual Fight Laugh Feast Events. If this content is helpful to you, would you please consider becoming a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member? We are trying to build a cancel-proof media platform, and we need your help. Join today and get a discount at the Fight Laugh Feast conference in Knoxville, TN and have a great day. Have a great day. Lord bless

Psychedelica Lex Episode 2022 – 053 The New FREE Chacruna RFRA Guide with Allison Hoots and Sean McAllister 01 February 2022 Part 1 of 1 ____________________________________________________ Author and host, Gary Michael Smith, Esq., is a decades-experienced, AV rated, attorney, American Arbitration Association panelist, founding director of the Arizona Cannabis Bar Association, board member of the Arizona Cannabis Chamber of Commerce, and general counsel to the nation's oldest federally recognized, 501C3, multi-racial peyote church. Psychedelica Lex is the first book to offer a comprehensive survey of the laws and regulations governing psychedelic substances. ABOUT THE PSYCHEDELICA LEX PODCAST AND CHANNEL President Nixon's enactment of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970 banished most psychedelics to Schedule I, making psychedelics for most purpose illegal. However, as the Congressional Record reveals, psychedelics never got a fair trial and little scientific evidence, if any, was considered by lawmakers. Prohibition was more about politics than public health. Yet, historical record, anecdotal evidence, and scientific studies all suggest that prohibition was an unnecessary and harmful overreaction and that many benefits may be derived from psychedelics. Psychedelica Lex puts the question of psychedelics on trial. Hosted by a veteran litigation attorney, each episode will explore psychedelics from different perspectives. As we explore the evidence together, you - the audience - will serve as jurors. Together we will examine every facet. Applying the rigors of cross examination and the Socratic method, we will seek an objective truth. ____________________________________________________________ The growth, trafficking, sale, possession, or consumption of psychedelics may be a felony punishable by imprisonment, fines, forfeiture of property, or any combination thereof. Most states have regulatory and criminal laws that mimic federal law. This podcast is for general informational purposes only. Material in this podcast is not intended to be and should not be used as a substitute for personal consultation with appropriate professionals. I am not your lawyer, and this podcast is not legal advice. PARENTAL ADVISORY: This podcast discusses psychedelic drugs. This episode may contain content that viewers may find offensive. Potentially offensive topics may include: drugs, sex, violence, religion, politics, science, public policy, economics, freedom of thought, free will, the nature of consciousness, art, and law. Language may be coarse and could include George Carlin's seven dirty words: sh*t, p*ss, f*ck, c*nt, c*cks*ck*r, m*th*rf*ck*r, and t*ts or some combination thereof. Opinions expressed in the podcast belong to the party who expressed them and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Psychedelica Lex or its host. SPECIAL CAUTION - This podcast might place you at risk of changing your mind. Viewer discretion is advised.

Host Katie Geary and Becket Executive Director Montse Alvarado launch Season 2 of Stream of Conscience with an episode on our favorite four-letter word: RFRA. In 1993, Congress passed RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, with overwhelming, bipartisan support, and President Bill Clinton signed it into being. So, why is RFRA controversial today?

Psychedelica Lex Episode 2021-012 - Montana's New RFRA Law - SB215 Psychedelica Lex Episode 2021-012 Montana's New RFRA Law - SB215 Part 1 of 1 ____________________________________________________ Author and host, Gary Michael Smith, Esq., is a decades-experienced, AV rated, attorney, American Arbitration Association panelist, founding director of the Arizona Cannabis Bar Association, board member of the Arizona Cannabis Chamber of Commerce, and general counsel to the nation's oldest federally recognized, 501C3, multi-racial peyote church. Psychedelica Lex is the first book to offer a comprehensive survey of the laws and regulations governing psychedelic substances. ABOUT THE PSYCHEDELICA LEX PODCAST AND CHANNEL President Nixon's enactment of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970 banished most psychedelics to Schedule I, making psychedelics for most purposes illegal. However, as the Congressional Record reveals, psychedelics never got a fair trial and little scientific evidence, if any, was considered by lawmakers. Prohibition was more about politics than public health. Yet, historical record, anecdotal evidence, and scientific studies all suggest that prohibition was an unnecessary and harmful overreaction and that many benefits may be derived from psychedelics. Psychedelica Lex puts the question of psychedelics on trial. Hosted by a veteran litigation attorney, each episode will explore psychedelics from different perspectives. As we explore the evidence together, you - the audience - will serve as jurors. Together we will examine every facet. Applying the rigors of cross examination and the Socratic method, we will seek an objective truth. ____________________________________________________________ The growth, trafficking, sale, possession, or consumption of psychedelics, may be a felony punishable by imprisonment, fines, forfeiture of property, or any combination thereof. Most states have regulatory and criminal laws that mimic federal law. This podcast is for general informational purposes only. Material in this podcast is not intended to be and should not be used as a substitute for personal consultation with appropriate professionals. I am not your lawyer and this podcast is not legal advice. PARENTAL ADVISORY: This podcast discusses psychedelic drugs. This episode, may contain content that viewers may find offensive. Potentially offensive topics may include: drugs, sex, violence, religion, politics, science, public policy, economics, freedom of thought, free will, the nature of consciousness, art, and law. Language may be coarse and could include George Carlin's seven dirty words: sh*t, p*ss, f*ck, c*nt, c*cks*ck*r, m*th*rf*ck*r, and t*ts or some combination thereof. Opinions expressed in the podcast belong to the party who expressed them and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Psychedelica Lex or its host. SPECIAL CAUTION This podcast might place you at risk of changing your mind. Viewer discretion is advised.

In this episode, we go back to the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby in 2014 to consider the structure of some of the arguments about the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in specific cases.

This episode gives an overview of the back-and-forth between the Supreme Court and Congress over the issue of religious free exercise that led to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993 and the Supreme Court's limiting of the application of RFRA only to federal law in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores (1997).

This week, the Supreme Court issued a landmark case for LGBTQ rights, interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Amanda and Holly discuss the opinion and the dissents, looking at the way each interprets “because of sex” in the statute. They also talk about how the opinion and dissents discuss implications for religious liberty, as well as responses to the case from the community. In the final segment, Amanda and Holly discuss and recommend recent movies and podcasts and invite you to join upcoming conversations about religious liberty, race, white supremacy and American Christianity. Segment 1: The Supreme Court decision in the Title VII cases (Starting at 00:40) Amanda and Holly previewed the Title VII cases in Episode 5, which you can hear at this link. The three consolidated “because of sex” cases are Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, and Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. Amanda mentioned this story on Gerald Bostock, written by Samantha Schmidt for The Washington Post: Fired after joining a gay softball league, Gerald Bostock wins landmark Supreme Court case. They mentioned the coverage of the decision in The New York Times, by Adam Nagourney and Jeremy W. Peters: A Half-Century On, an Unexpected Milestone for L.G.B.T.Q. Rights. To read the opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch and dissents by Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, visit this link.   Segment 2: How does religious liberty fit into this? (starting at 16:30) The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is often referred to as “RFRA,” which sounds like “Riff-rah.” Learn more about it at this link.   Segment 3: Movie and podcast recommendations and invitations to join us in conversation (starting at 31:30) Amanda recommended this episode of The Ezra Klein Show podcast, featuring a conversation with Cyrus Habib. Holly recommended the movie Just Mercy, which is currently available to watch for free on several different streaming platforms. Amanda recommended the documentary Emanuel, which is available to rent on streaming platforms. You can watch a live Facebook conversation on Juneteenth with Amanda and BJC Director of Education Charles Watson Jr. on Friday, June 19, at 1 p.m. on BJC's Facebook page. Join us for a national conversation on white supremacy and American Christianity on Friday, June 26, at noon Eastern Time. The livestream is free, but you must register to attend. Visit BJConline.org/luncheon for details.

When we think of nuns, there comes to mind the vision of good ladies in habits, easily identified as special members of the Roman Catholic Church, and of course doing good deeds of mercy and kindness to others, and especially to the poor. Perhaps we also think in stereotypic terms that nuns are passive, always ready to turn the other cheek, even nonconfrontational and certainly not political. Perhaps a nun is best represented by that very special one MOTHER TERESA. What she did in her life achieved worldwide notoriety, well deserved. But by no means all of them fit this stereotype. There came the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, which we know as OBAMACARE which required all medical insurance to cover women's “preventive care.” The anti–religion Barack Hussein Obama and the Obama Administration immediately and progressively defined preventive care as all manner of birth control. That meant that any insurance plan, whether private or governmental was required, forced to offer and pay for birth control no matter any religious ramifications. There were indeed exemptions, such as churches, granted a full exemption. But ironically so called employers like the LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR were not. That organization, to be sure, was indeed religious in nature but the LITTLE SISTERS were required to offer and pay for birth control items in any medical insurance offered. They stood up and fought back. And they took on the government yet a second time.In 2017 and 2018, the Trump Administration expanded the exemption to employers who sincerely objected to paying for contraceptives. Good for you, Mr. Donald John Trump, good for you. But then, as the Wall Street Journal so well states, “in a dreary example of liberal intolerance, Pennsylvania and New Jersey sued to have the Trump exemption declared invalid, illegal and unconstitutional.” Not to be intimidated by the liberal, legal moves of these two states, the Little Sisters of the Poor, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania moved to intervene. The case made its way through the lower courts, including the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and it was finally recognized by the Supreme Court as a supreme legal example of constitutional importance, and a Supreme Court recognized and consolidated with other cases for review and decision:         THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR V. PENNSYLVANIAThis case is one excellent example of the conflict which now exists between competing rights of the First Amendment of the Constitution, namely the CLASH between FREEDOM OF RELIGION and the extent of the power and control of the federal government. Can, this case argues, religious organizations not churches, which again are exempt, which have sincerely held religious beliefs that the use of contraceptives and birth control measures are immoral and against their religion and conscience be required to offer such and even pay for these items as medical insurances offered. Can the government? Pennsylvania and New Jersey argue that the Trump Administration exceeded its power when it granted this broad exemption to private employers. The states claim that the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT (RFRA) and Obamacare do not authorize the creation of these exemptions to the birth control mandate. The Little Sisters of the Poor, God bless them, fought back and forcefully reminded the Supreme Court that the RFRA clearly states that if the government wants to “substantially burden” religion against its conscience, which the birth control requirement would clearly do, the government must have a compelling interest in doing such and it must also do so by the least restrictive means. Is it, the nuns ask, governmentally COMPELLING that the government require and be so involved with the enforcement of birth control no matter the unconscionable burden to religious organizations and, is requiring all such organizations to offer and pay for such the least restrictive way the government can enforce this COMPELLING INTEREST as a national requirement. The nuns say no way and so do thousands of other such organizations and entities and so many private business owners as well.By the way, the government tried to avoid the matter, the lawsuit by offering the Little Sisters a fig leaf. That is, an opt–out for them as a compromise. That might indeed solve the problem for the nuns and their organization, but it would leave undecided the much larger issue of governmental interference to religion generally and the constitutional rights of freedom of religion of so many other entities, paving the way for more litigation. Up they stood, these strong defenders of and believers in the constitution and freedom of religion and refused to be bribed. They did then and do now intend to FIGHT THE FIGHT OF FAITH. And all of us who are religious – Christian and otherwise applaud them and stand with them.The states Pennsylvania and New Jersey responded to the Supreme Court that the nuns were unreasonable, guilty of OBSTINACY. Their attorneys immediately responded saying it is not obstinacy on their part but:         CONSTANCY OF BELIEF. Good for them. It is such a pleasure to witness a religious organization standing firm, unintimidated by government and willing to do whatever is required to protect their constitutional rights and especially freedom of religion. All of us religionists, whether Catholic or not, should support this effort and watch with great expectancy the actions and critical decision making of the United States Supreme Court, which will occur this year 2020. Pay attention to this case my fellow Americans, and especially my fellow Christians:         LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR V. PENNSYLVANIA.You know which side to root for!The Supreme Court stated in the landmark case BURWELL V. HOBBY LOBBY that the burden of proof rests with government which must show that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. In so many cases, whichever party has the BURDEN OF PROOF has the more difficult duty to produce such evidence in order to win the case. In the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court held that the government had not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. In short, it lost. In that ruling, and perhaps facetiously, the court suggested that the “feds” could “assume the cost of the insurance as an alternative means to achieve the governmental end which would be a FEDERAL BURDEN of billions of dollars.” Obviously, that went nowhere with the Obama Administration and the governmental agencies supporting his policies. The Hobby Lobby case unfortunately left any number of serious and critical constitutional issues undecided and now, THE LITTLE SISTERS, bless them, and their judicial fortitude will require the Supreme Court to decide the issue once and for all. And that is, the extent to which the government has a compelling interest in requiring “all manner of birth control” for any and all medical insurance plans, including and especially those offered by employers. We should all hope and pray that these stand–up nuns win the case. And of course, enter groups like PLANNED PARENTHOOD. This aggressive and essentially government–funded organization, federal and state, say that all women would be harmed if their employers can object to paying for contraceptives – birth control. But such an argument is really specious indeed. Surely, if a man or a woman engaging in sexual acts wishes to utilize any form of contraception, he or she can personally pay for that protection. Any form of government, federal, state or local should not have the arbitrary power to require anyone or any entity to do so. In the hearts and minds of tens of millions, that is governmental overreach, abuse of authority and power, and most clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.The Wall Street Journal reminds us that our great country America and WE THE PEOPLE have long been a beacon of light and hope for:         RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.Move on, governments, and fight the fight of the CORONAVIRUS and other things medical that really matter and affect all of us equally. We have always accommodated, we American's religion and religious freedom whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, or any other for that matter, whether or not we agree with such others. We understand no matter our beliefs that religious freedom applies to every American citizen, EVERY ONE! Any differences are settled or debated with words and deeds, but not FORCE, especially governmental. We the people accommodate the Amish so that they are exempt from social security. We accommodate pacifists like Quakers and Brethren who will not go to war. Not only are we not intolerant to religion and the free exercise of religion as the constitution guarantees, but we the people encourage real religion in every way we can. When there are those who have SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS that something is wrong, and inconsistent with and compromising of their legitimate faith, those deeply held religious convictions should be honored. THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR do not believe in and are against contraceptives and the use of birth control. They and all like them should be exempt from offering and paying for such in the health plans they offer. That is our belief and that is what the constitution requires in our opinion. WHAT DO YOU THINK?Whether Catholic or not, all of us should applaud the courage, the STAND–UP of THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR. They and their attorneys take on the great states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey who at least in this matter have lost their way. It is really so interesting, so American that ladies of mercy and charity take on the constitutional fight when other organizations have not. Let us who believe in religious freedom support them, and watch anxiously, hopefully and prayerfully that the Supreme Court will do the right thing, make the right decision and authenticate and prioritize freedom of religion and freedom of religious conscience. THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION DEMAND THAT.

What does it mean for religious liberty when the government asks houses of worship not to hold services in the middle of a pandemic? Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman look at the impact of the coronavirus on religious communities and how they are responding (starting at 6:13). Plus, they explore a key law that keeps coming up in these conversations: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (23:03). In the final segment, Amanda and Holly share how the stay-at-home orders are impacting them and how churches are finding new ways to serve in this time. Segment 1: How do government-issued stay-at-home orders impact religious exercise? (Starting at 00:40) Read the Pew Forum survey on why people attend religious services at this link.   Segment 2: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and religious exemptions (starting at 15:40) Read about the pastor who continues to hold church services in Louisiana in this article by Daniel Silliman in Christianity Today: Pentecostal Pastor Won't Stop Church for COVID-19. Learn more about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) at BJConline.org/RFRA. For more on the current Supreme Court case examining RFRA remedies (Tanzin v. Tanvir), visit this link on our website.   Segment 3: Where did we see religion respected in our world? Religious communities react to the coronavirus (30:58) Read the story about a pastor who preached to photos of his congregants in this story by David Wilkinson in Baptist News Global: Don't mess with Texas, COVID-19: this church packed the pews on Sunday. Read the story about the Alabama church that provided space to test people for coronavirus in this article by Sarah Pulliam Bailey in The Washington Post: A megachurch has helped test nearly 1,000 people for coronavirus in two days.

In February, the Yale Law School chapter of the Federalist Society invited Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom to speak on campus. This, to put it mildly, didn't go over well with some of the law school's more “woke” students. Using talking points straight from the Southern Poverty Law Center, students protested Waggoner's visit, calling the ADF a “homophobic, transphobic hate group." If that's all that had happened, it would “merely” have been yet another example of progressive intolerance. However, the way things escalated makes clear how serious the on-campus threats to religious freedom have become, and just where those threats are coming from. The protesters not only protested, they had a list of demands, including that Yale Law would make it “more difficult for students to work at ‘discriminatory' organizations” like ADF and that the school would “consider denying admission to applicants who worked on certain religious liberty efforts before law school.” As Yale Law School alum Samuel Adkisson wrote in USA Today, these kinds of demands are usually greeted with laughter. But not this time. Not only did Yale cave into the demands, they went beyond them by announcing an expanded anti-discrimination policy. Under the new policy, employers who hire Yale students or graduates who benefit from the school's “public-interest funding, its loan-repayment program, and its post-graduate fellowships,” must promise that they “will not consider an applicant's ‘religion,' ‘religious creed,' ‘gender identity' or ‘gender expression'” in the hiring decision. The sound you hear is doors of opportunity for students slamming shut everywhere. Basically, any organization that runs afoul of the new sexual orthodoxy that's driving this new policy, will find it much more difficult to recruit Yale Law School grads. And those grads whose motivations run toward non-profit or public service will find their choices significantly narrowed. Yale's blatant discrimination against people with traditional religious beliefs is an important reminder of where the greatest challenge to religious freedom currently lies in our culture. As David French wrote at National Review, one of “the prime sources of [culture war] conflict is the increasing progressive tendency to use the financial and cultural power of progressive institutions to force social change regardless of the underlying mission of the institution.” Think back to the controversy over Indiana's attempt to enact a state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The most vocal and well-funded opposition came from companies like Salesforce, which threatened to boycott the state, and Angie's List, which said it would shelve plans to expand its headquarters in Indianapolis. Even the NCAA, which is based in Indianapolis, threatened to no longer hold the Final Four in the city. Private-sector threats to religious liberty are dangerous precisely because, unlike governments, universities or a Fortune 500 company aren't covered by the First Amendment or RFRA. While they can run afoul of anti-discrimination laws, as French wrote, “we should not confuse Yale's actions with a constitutional violation.” Thus, legal recourse against Yale is unlikely. This is another example where politics tends to be downstream from the rest of culture. As more and more private entities act in concert with activists who have declared traditional Christian morality beyond the pale, the more likely we are to see public policy follow suit. And this allows private companies and colleges to divert attention from other things they're doing, like dangerous working conditions in Chinese factories or trampling their customers' privacy online or selling an education that delivers no return. Whenever they're challenged, they simply yell, “Hey! Check out our rainbow flag!” All of this is why corporate and academic wokeness, even more than the government, is a primary threat to religious freedom.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

On Tax Day, Nicole Sandler speaks with Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church & State about RFRA laws and religious tax evasion. Dave Johnson joins in from OurFuture.org with the latest on the TPP and Fast Track Authority.

It's Tuesday, April 14th, 2015, and this is Episode Nine, The RiFRAff and Rand Paul Edition, and on this fortnight's episode: Are Rand Paul's positions really libertarian in nature? We also talk about what's in the news, the RFRA, and some phone apps that can keep your phone calls and text messages out of the hands […] The post TLF009 – The RiFRAff and Rand Paul Edition appeared first on The LAVA Flow Podcast.

Bill Bennett and Max Boot on the Iran/U.S. mess. Hugh Hewitt and Bret Stephens the future of the Middle East. Bennett and Nina Shea on the 147 college Christians being slaughtered in Kenya by radical Muslims. Bennett and Robert Costa on the Rand Paul presidential announcement. Hewitt and Carly Fiorina on Hillary's email server and her credentials if she runs on the GOP presidential ticket. Dennis Prager and John Eastman on RFRA and the Indiana religious liberty issue.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Pat and Stu, Rand Paul is officially running for president in 2016! Also, more outrage over the RFRA law, driver-less vehicles, is salt really bad for you? and much more ! Listen to Pat & Stu for FREE on TheBlaze Radio Network from 5p-7p ET, Monday through Friday. www.theblaze.com/radioFollow the show on Twitter: @PatandStuFacebook: www.facebook.com/patandstublazetv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The whole PL gang assembled this afternoon to tape Episode 13 of the Power Line Show. They discuss Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the controversy that followed its passage. Law Professor John Yoo of Berkeley joined us for an extensive discussion of the legal issues relating to RFRA — and, trust me, the conversation is entertaining as well as informative. The crew then goes on to... Source