Tag: First Amendment

Posted on

Religious Liberty

Fresno Bee, Nov. 2, 2025

The Trump administration’s call for a religious revival is worrying

Religious freedom is the first liberty of the First Amendment. As we consider our rights in this time of crisis, we should ponder the meaning of these 16 words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Americans are free to believe whatever we want, but the government should not use its power to support or favor any particular religion.

One wonders then about the White House’s “America Prays” initiative. This is a call to prayer connected with the upcoming 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. When he unveiled the program last month, President Donald Trump explained that “to have a great nation, you have to have religion.” He said, “When faith gets weaker, our country seems to get weaker.” And, “We’re defending our rights and restoring our identity as a nation under God.”

This top-down call for religious revival is worrying. Our political leaders have a “free exercise” right to pray. They are at liberty to discuss religion and promote it, as free citizens. But this becomes problematic when the government leads a religious revival.

Just this week, Sean Feucht, a pastor associated with the Trump administration, revealed that, as the 250th anniversary approaches, “We are planning and plotting to do revival meetings sponsored by the U.S. government all across the nation.” This would include a “giant, massive” worship event at Mount Rushmore.

Feucht may be speaking loosely here with regard to a government-sponsored revival. The government could permit citizens to meet in public for religious purposes. But if the government sponsored a revival, this would violate the First Amendment’s “establishment clause.”

A government-sponsored religious revival will inevitably end up picking sides in disputes about religion. What will non-Christian people think about their tax dollars being spent to sponsor a Christian revival? And even within Christianity, there are deep disagreements. Will the revival include Mormons and Methodists, Catholics and Congregationalists?

And what about the growing number of non-religious people? Around 30% of Americans are not affiliated with any religion. A recent survey from the Pew Center found that 68% of Americans think that religion is “losing influence.”

This general decline of religion helps explain the rise of Christian nationalism. In my recent book on this topic, I explain Christian nationalism as “post-secular backlash.” Some Christians worry that the First Amendment system has allowed too much freedom of religion. They blame our growing lack of religious commitment on a world in which religious liberty has gone too far.

Proponents of Christian revival push back against the way the First Amendment has been applied and understood. Some want to bring back school prayer and teach Bible lessons in schools. But First Amendment cases have often been driven by Christians who want to practice their faith in their own way. Christians have been plaintiffs in recent cases opposing the promotion of the Ten Commandments in schools in Louisiana and the Bible in Oklahoma schools.

These Christians don’t want the government to impose a preferred text, prayer or interpretation of faith. It is worth asking whether we trust government officials — with all their flaws — to shape the faith of the nation.

The American Founders did not. That’s why they emphasize religious liberty. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson authored a “Statute on Religious Freedom” for the state of Virginia. This was passed into law in 1786 with the help of James Madison, who went on to author the First Amendment. The Virginia Statute says, among other things, that it is an “impious presumption” for “fallible and uninspired men” to assume “dominion over the faith of others.”

The word “dominion” is important. History records many struggles for power among religious sects. When governments get involved in these power struggles, it antagonizes some parties, while privileging others.

Perhaps a religious revival could help a nation lost in loneliness, addiction and violence. But which faith will lead the revival? And those who have left religion behind may imagine a different sort of revival: of science and rationality. If there is to be a revival, this should be the work of free citizens. It is not the business of the government.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article312711431.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

The Right to Peaceful Assembly

Fresno Bee, October 19, 2025

Trump’s federal crackdowns risk eroding peaceful assembly rights

Now is a crucial time to think about our basic rights. Among the rights listed in the First Amendment are the rights to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The right to petition and assemble allows us to gather in protests, marches and demonstrations.

It is antithetical to the idea of liberty to prevent people from gathering in public. But the right to assembly has often been at risk. Recent crackdowns against protest and dissent risk violating that right, as well as freedom of speech.

At a recent roundtable discussion of “antifa” and anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests, President Donald Trump celebrated his ban on flag burning, saying, “we took the freedom of speech away.” A Supreme Court precedent from the 1980s, however, allows flag burning. Trump’s policy is justified by appealing to an issue involving the right to assemble. He explained, “When they burn a flag, it agitates and irritates crowds, I’ve never seen anything like it, on both sides, and you end up with riots. So, we’re going on that basis.”

The right of peaceful assembly is not a right to rampage. The government can stop riots as a matter of public safety. But the threat of a riot can be used as a pretext for violating people’s rights.

The tension between liberty and public safety is real. We saw this during the COVID pandemic, when public gatherings were limited. National guard deployments could be justified in terms of public safety. If there really were riots, the right to assembly could be curtailed.

But this depends on the facts on the ground. And as a federal judge recently ruled, the president’s claims about protecting what he calls “war ravaged” cities is “untethered to the facts.”

Legal authorities should protect both protesters and counter-protesters, who each have a right to protest. But the presence of troops and the threat of arrest can have a chilling effect on ordinary citizens who are scared away from assembling. Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project, said of these deployments: “It risks chilling the rights to speak and to assemble. In other words, that very fundamental American right to protest.”

The right to peacefully assemble has been called a “forgotten freedom.” This right may seem so obvious that it is almost not worth thinking about. The right to assembly is about what we do with our bodies, where we gather and how we associate with other people. To limit this fundamental right to move our bodies and occupy space without good reason is tyrannical.

The American founders understood this, which was why they ratified the First Amendment. In the background was the case of William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania. As a young man, Penn was arrested in England for meeting in public with other Quakers. England had banned such “conventicles” in an attempt to harass dissenters.

This reminds us that the right to assemble is related to religious liberty (religion is a communal practice that involves public gatherings). The right to assemble is also important for political parties, social clubs, labor unions, and other gatherings of people.

This right has often been understood in relation to freedom of association, thought and expression. Freedom of assembly and association are linked with science and education. The advance of knowledge depends upon freedom of speech and of the press. Knowledge also develops socially. To learn wisdom, we must be able to meet and argue with other people. In the digital era, it is not only bodies that gather in public but also minds who should be free to meet together in cyberspace.

In his last speech, Martin Luther King Jr. addressed the attempt by the government to prevent protests during the Civil Rights movement. He remarked that liberty is routinely stifled in China, Russia and other totalitarian countries. But in the U.S., we have freedom of speech, press and assembly. King said, “the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.” The rights to assemble, speak and petition are an important part of what makes American great.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article312530253.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Freedom of Speech and Press

Fresno Bee, Oct 5, 2025

The American Constitution wisely limits the law in ways that prevent authoritarianism.  These limits are reflected in the separation of powers, and in the fundamental rights and liberties set forth in the First Amendment and other Constitutional amendments.  The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government.

These rights are increasingly at risk.  A federal judge, William G. Young, argued in a recent ruling that the Trump Administration is engaged in a “full-throated assault on the First Amendment.”  The case involved the question of whether the government can deport noncitizens for exercising their right to freedom of speech.  The result of the Administration’s efforts, according to the judge, has been to “chill” the exercise of basic rights. 

Adding to this chilling effect are Trumpian lawsuits against newspapers and the threat that broadcasters could lose their licenses if they cross the President.  The President even suggested that it is “illegal” for reporters to write negative stories. 

This week, when the President suggested using American cities as “training grounds” for American troops, he warned military leaders of an “invasion” by “the enemy from within.”  He also attacked the press as “sleazebags” and “really corrupt.”  Trump has often referred to the press “the enemy of the people.”

  In this chilly environment it might seem wise to keep your mouth shut.  But if we remain silent, the chill will deepen.  Now is the time to speak up in defense of the Constitution and our basic rights.

One important part of this task is to recall that the liberties we enjoy today were not always ours.  The background condition for understanding American liberty is the bad old world of medieval authoritarianism, when heretics were burned, books were banned, and freethinkers were censored. 

As we all learned in school (or should have), the American colonists often came here to escape persecution in the old world.  But there was also censorship and persecution in the new world.  Benjamin Franklin’s brother, James, was jailed in 1722 by authorities in Massachusetts for publishing a controversial newspaper.  While his brother was in jail, Benjamin took over, publishing the following famous remark, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” 

This point is a common one made by modern philosophers, who assert that liberty is needed for progress and enlightenment.  John Stuart Mill said that attempts to limit freedom of speech and of the press are “noxious” and “illegitimate.”  The attempt to silence people ends up “robbing the human race” of the opportunity to argue and think.

Even after the Constitution was ratified Americans struggled with the temptation to censor.  The Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790’s punished those who questioned the government.  One congressman, Matthew Lyon, of Vermont, was jailed for criticizing President John Adams in a newspaper he printed.  Lyon had said that President Adams had “an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp.”

During this time, Thomas Jefferson worried that his mail would be intercepted and his political ideas would be punished.  He said in a letter, “the circumstances of the times are against my writing fully & freely.”  He added, “I know not which mortifies me most, that I should fear to write what I think, or my country bear such a state of things.” 

The chilling effect of censorship makes us think twice about expressing our opinions, thus undermining our liberty and stifling debate.  If someone with Jefferson’s stature was afraid to write candidly in a private letter, ordinary people will likely also fear to express themselves freely. 

History shows that bad ideas do not last forever.  James Franklin was released from jail.  Benjamin Franklin went on to play a vital role in the Revolution.  Matthew Lyon was re-elected to Congress while imprisoned.  After John Adams was voted out, his Federalist party eventually disappeared.  The Sedition Act expired when Thomas Jefferson took office. 

Progress can and does happen.  Bad laws can be repealed. Bad leaders can be voted out. And wisdom can replace stupidity.  But this can only happen if we are free to express ourselves.

Read more: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article312355327.html

Posted on

The Secular Declaration of Independence

Fresno Bee, July 6, 2025

“Declaration of Independence was rooted in Enlightenment ideals, not divinity”

Some suggest that the U.S. is a Christian nation.  That claim often rests upon an interpretation of American history that misunderstands the Declaration of Independence.  For example, the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, said this week, that that the American Founders’ “creed” is stated in the Declaration.  Johnson believes that Thomas Jefferson was “divinely inspired” to write the Declaration.

Jefferson’s language is worth careful consideration as we celebrate the 249th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration.  The part of The Declaration that has been emphasized by Johnson and others is the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 

The Founders understood the world as coming from a creator.  They thought that human rights were found in the “laws of nature” and “nature’s God,” to quote another earlier passage from the Declaration. 

But Jesus is not mentioned here.  Nor is the Bible.  Indeed, Jefferson had a decidedly unorthodox understanding of Christianity.  Like Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson was a Deist who understood “nature’s God” as distinct from the God of the Bible.  He rejected the idea that the abstract “creator” could perform miracles.  Jefferson even revised the Bible to eliminate its miracles, including the resurrection of Christ.  Jefferson’s Unitarian colleague John Adams also doubted the divinity of Christ.  To suggest that these authors were inspired to create a Christian nation is simply false, as I discuss in my new book, Christian Nationalism and the Paradox of Secularism.

These Enlightenment-era thinkers were sympathetic to a rational, philosophical reconstruction of ancient revealed religions.  They also understood themselves as doing a very human thing by engaging in political struggle.  Just after that famous statement about the creator and our inalienable rights, the Declaration adds a second self-evident claim: “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The text says that governments are human constructions.  The legitimacy of governments depends upon democratic consent, not divinely ordination.  Building upon this point, the next self-evident truth of the Declaration is that there is a right to revolt against unjust government and to re-construct government according to our own best judgment. 

This makes the Declaration a secular or humanistic document.  Our rights may come from God, the creator, or the laws of nature.  But government is a human creation.  It is “we, the people” who create governments, and alter or abolish them.

This human process culminated in the creation of the U.S. Constitution.  The Constitution was a second attempt to create a government, which built upon the failure of the Articles of Confederation.  The Constitution was a negotiated document that included the notorious compromise that allowed slavery to exist.  Americans fought a Civil War to further clarify and improve the Constitution.  None of this indicates divine inspiration. 

Indeed, the Constitution affirms a secular standpoint.  The only mention of religion in the Constitution itself occurs in Article 6, where religious tests for office are prohibited.  And the First Amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  This means you are free to worship (or not) according to your conscience, and the government is not allowed to erect an official state religion.

This is a radically modern idea that broke away from the traditional way of conceiving church and state.  In England and other European lands, church and state were combined, and often still are.  The King of England is the head of the Anglican church, for example.  In the United States there is no American church.  Nor does the President lead a religious institution. 

The fact that the authors of the Declaration were Deists and Unitarians reminds us why they wanted a new form of government.  In another time or in another country, those men would have been persecuted as heretics.  But they created a country where such persecution no longer occurs.  The legal framework they created was not the result of divine intervention.  Rather, it was the result of human beings daring to imagine a new form of government in which religious liberty was broad enough to include their own unorthodox beliefs.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article309937295.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

The Ten Commandments and the First Amendment

Fresno Bee, July 7, 2024

The Ten Commandments have long been controversial. So, it’s not surprising that Christians in Louisiana have resurrected this controversy with a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in schools. Oklahoma and Texas are following suit. Donald Trump recently posted, in all caps, “I LOVE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.”

This appears to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits state entities from propounding religious doctrine. This does not mean, however, that schools and teachers cannot address the controversy.

At best, the text known as the Ten Commandments invites deeper conversations about religion, ethics, and political life. At worst, it becomes a meaningless idol, posted on the wall without thought.

Scholars refer to this text as The Decalogue, which means “ten sayings.” In the Bible, these sayings are not numbered and occur in slightly different forms in Exodus and Deuteronomy. The text has been interpreted in diverse ways. This includes a difference in numbering the commandments. Catholics think the sixth commandment is against adultery, while Protestants count that as number seven. For Catholics, the commandment against murder is number five. Protestants count that as number six.

Beyond the textual details is the deep question of whether morality must be grounded in religion. The first several commandments are religious, which may suggest that faith is before ethics. Does this mean that atheists cannot be ethical?

Another significant question is whether morality is negative, focused only on a few “you shall not” prohibitions. Should we donate to the poor, forgive our enemies, or give special consideration to the disabled?

The Decalogue is silent on these questions. It does not mention abortion, the death penalty, or war. Nor does it celebrate democracy or liberty. The Decalogue has always been the subject of interpretive disputes. When asked about these ancient laws, Jesus offered a succinct interpretation, suggesting that there are only two laws: love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Of course, this did not settle the matter. Benjamin Franklin suggested the existence of twelve commandments, with the first being “to increase and multiply” and the twelfth demanding us “to love one another.” John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the matter in letters the two ex-presidents exchanged about a German book of Biblical criticism. Adams suggested that the book showed that the Ten Commandments were “not written by the finger of God on tables.” Jefferson expressed doubt about the authenticity of the Decalogue since, as he put it, the history of these texts is “defective and doubtful.”

There are lots of interesting questions here for student research and reflection. Consider the third or fourth commandment—depending on your tradition—which focuses on keeping the sabbath day holy. Does this mean that businesses must close or that it would be wrong to watch football on Sunday? Students might also ask whether Sunday is actually the sabbath. Most Christians think so. But Seventh-Day Adventists maintain that Sunday was imposed on Christians by the Romans. They follow Jewish tradition and view Saturday as the Sabbath.

Critical discussions of the Decalogue should eventually lead to a conversation about the value of the First Amendment as a response to religious diversity. When a state authority picks sides in religious and moral controversies, it ends up violating the Establishment Clause. There is no doubt that the Decalogue is controversial. But does posting the text amount to promoting a religious viewpoint?

If the text were posted alongside similar texts such as Hammurabi’s Code, Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths, or the Five Pillars of Islam, it would be more obviously a stimulus for critical thought and lessons about history. Context matters. As does the intention of those who post such texts.

Christian culture warriors do not seem to engage in critical thinking about the Bible. Here is the irony: If the text isn’t used to spur critical conversations, it appears to violate the First Amendment. But once we engage in a critical conversation about the Decalogue, it becomes obvious that the text is controversial and that the Establishment Clause ought to prohibit it from being posted as an idol in classrooms.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/article289743274.html#storylink=cpy