Mediaboss Marketing

Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Center of the Newseum Institute.

On Jan. 27, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, President Donald Trump issued an executive order temporarily halting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, suspending the refugee program and permanently imposing a religious test for refugees going forward.

Jen Smyers of Church World Service spoke for many people of faith working on behalf of refugees when she called Jan. 27 a shameful day in the history of the United States.

Numerous national security experts and diplomats including more than 1,000 State Department officials have also spoken out, warning that the order is wrongheaded and dangerous. The optics of an American policy that appears to target Muslims seriously tarnishes the reputation of the U.S. in Muslim-majority countries and throughout the world.

The initial chaos and confusion surrounding the rollout is a harbinger of the damage to come from alienating Muslims worldwide, empowering radicals, and abandoning refugees to suffer in camps. Far from making us safer, the executive order is widely viewed as a direct threat to our national security and an assault on American values.

Of all the controversial provisions of the order, none is more problematic and damaging than the religious test that gives priority to refugees fleeing religious persecution if, and only if, they are a religious minority in their country of origin. The intent is clear: Open the door to Christians from Muslim-majority countries while doing everything possible to keep Muslims out.

Although the order does not explicitly mention Muslims and administration officials insist it is not a Muslim ban we know the motive behind the order from Trumps own campaign promise to mandate the complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.

Facing fierce backlash last summer, Trump retooled the Muslim ban to make it more palatable, but he did not retreat from his intention to keep Muslims out. Asked by NBC News in July if he was backing away from his Muslim ban, Trump answered:

I dont actually think its a rollback. In fact, you could say its an expansion People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you cant use the word Muslim. Remember this. And Im OK with that, because Im talking territory instead of Muslim.

Now, six months later, Trumps Muslim ban under another guise is the official policy of the United States government.

From a human rights perspective, the most disturbing parts of the executive order bar refugees for four months, cut the number allowed in by 60,000, impose a religious test, and freeze indefinitely the refugee resettlement of Syrians. Taken together, these policies add up to an inhumane, immoral and woefully inadequate response to the greatest humanitarian crisis since World War II.

Contradictions and ironies abound. Trump recently told Christian Broadcast News that he wanted to help Syrian Christians, whom he claimed (without citing evidence) were deliberately kept out while Syrian Muslim refugees were let in under the last administration. But his executive order bars all refugees from Syria indefinitely meaning that Christians facing genocide in Syria will have no haven in America.

Last year the U.S. accepted a small number of Syrians (10,000 as of August 2016) out of the nearly 5 million Syrian refugees. After Trumps order, the number will be zero. Once the four-month ban on refugees from other countries is lifted, the number of projected refugees will be cut almost in half and those seeking entry will face a religious test.

Beyond humanitarian concerns, I am convinced that Trumps order is also unconstitutional. The Establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from targeting Muslims for exclusion and favoring Christians for admission; in short, prioritizing some religious groups over others. Lawsuits have already been filed challenging Trump on First Amendment and other constitutional grounds.

If strengthening national security is the goal, keeping out refugees Muslim or otherwise is not the solution. Refugees are currently vetted for over two years before being allowed entry, and no person accepted into the U.S. as a refugee has been implicated in a fatal terrorist attack since systematic procedures were established for accepting refugees in 1980, according to an analysis of terrorism immigration risks by the Cato Institute.

Orwellian doublespeak cannot obscure the hostility toward Muslims and Islam that animates President Trumps executive order on immigration. A Muslim ban is a Muslim ban by any other name.

On the day we remember the Nazi genocide of the Jews, the United States closed the door to those fleeing genocide today.

A shameful day indeed.

Charles C. Haynes is vice president of the Newseum Institute and founding director of the Religious Freedom Center.

Here is the original post:
First Amendment: 'A shameful day' - hays Post

President Trump came to the National Prayer Breakfast last week with cheering words about religious liberty. Together with his picks of Vice President Mike Pence and Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, he has made strong inroads among Christian conservatives.

But Trump needs to deepen his knowledge and broaden his interest in religious liberty.

When he talks about religious liberty, he almost always brings up the sole issue of the Johnson Amendment.

The Johnson Amendment is a 1954 law that prohibits religious organizations from participating in "any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." Trump wants to scrap that, and congressional Republicans have a bill to do it.

Great. Freedom of speech is crucial. Passing and signing the Free Speech Fairness Act, a bill sponsored by Sen. Jim Lankford to repeal the Johnson Act, would be great.

But Trump needs to look wider at religious liberty, which was for years under attack by President Obama, and recognize that it is a far-reaching matter of conscience that extends to all manner of issues at the nexus of public and private life.

St. Augustine once wrote of a hypothetical man sentenced to death. "What does it really matter to a man whose days are numbered what government he must obey," Augustine asked, "so long as he is not compelled to act against God or his conscience?"

This is where the crisis is for the faithful in America today. Trump owes it to the religious conservatives who elected him to enter this fight.

The Obama administration tried to force Hobby Lobby's owners to pay for employees' morning-after birth control, which may function as abortifacients. They also fought the Little Sisters of the Poor to force the nuns to pay for birth control for convent staff. Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has gone after a Catholic School that fired a gay teacher after he married another man.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Lawmakers race against a 60-day clock to repeal a slew of Obama administration regulations.

02/05/17 12:01 AM

Recently the ACLU sued Catholic hospitals in an effort to force them to perform abortions.

Wedding photographers, bakers and florists have all come under fire by state governments for not facilitating gay weddings.

These are cases where people were forced to choose between the law and a conscientious wish to follow the precepts of their faith. The Obama administration proposed the novel view that First Amendment protections of a person's free exercise of religion ceased the moment he or she entered into commerce.

Obama went out of his way to restrict the First Amendment, speaking regularly of the "freedom of worship," rather than to what the amendment actually refers to, which is the "free exercise of religion." In other words, he tried to pen religious liberty in so it could be exercised only on the Sabbath.

These are the threats to religious liberty that Trump needs to assault first. He needs to protect the conscience rights of believers.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Republicans are pushing back on claims that they are softening their language about Obamacare's future.

02/05/17 12:00 AM

He could start by making it clear that the Obama administration's view of the First Amendment was pusillanimous and he does not accept it. The freedom of worship is just a small part of the free exercise of religion.

Trump has a good role model in Judge Neil Gorsuch, his nominee for Supreme Court. In one of his many rulings, Gorsuch quoted court precedent to say, "The 'exercise of religion' often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts."

Importantly, Gorsuch's rulings don't only include Christians, but also have covered Muslims and Native Americans.

Trump could also get to work undoing Obama's birth control mandate, a gratuitous culture-war assault on conscience. The president could make it clear across the executive branch that holding a traditional view of marriage is not bigotry, and those who hold these views thus don't deserve government prosecution or persecution.

Fights over the Johnson Amendment are worthwhile, but secondary, because politics are secondary. For the religious, the things of the world are nothing compared to the eternal. That means the most important thing Trump can do for those millions of Americans for who religious faith is pre-eminently important, is to make sure government isn't coercing them to do what God forbids.

Top Story

Notice sent about 24 hours after judge ordered the restraining order.

02/04/17 7:27 PM

Original post:
How Trump can sure up the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances."First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

In the first two weeks of the Trump administration, the President or his staff have taken actions against, or complained about, the expression of each part of the first amendment. It's like they've never even read it.

Police departments in large cities have had to deal with protest crowds for years, and most of them, most of the time, do fairly well. Now, in the Trump era, departments in even small towns have had to engage in a crash course in how to respond. Most of them are also doing fairly well in respecting their citizen's first amendment rights. Visalia held a protest recently, where organizers expected maybe 80 or 100 people to show up. Imagine everyone's surprise, especially the Visalia Police Department's, when an estimated 500 were on hand to express themselves. VPD must have done a good job, we've not heard of any issues arising from the peaceful protest. (a lot of nonsense on Facebook about it, but that doesn't really count)

I think the protests are the only good thing I've seen happen as a result of Trump winning the Presidency. He's reminded the American people of their basic civil duty, and their right to engage in defending their country. I doubt he thought it would be in response to his actions (or just his presence), though.

We're going to be seeing a lot of this kind of thing in the future. I have no doubt that instigators will try to inflame things by engaging in violence and destruction (as we saw in Berkeley), and of course the Fox News and Breitbarts of the country will try to lay the blame on liberals and liberalism. They'll ignore hundreds of peaceful demonstrations, and focus on the few outliers. After all, that's how they drive their ratings and page clicks. I have no doubt that Robert Reich was correct when he stated on CNN that outside agitators invaded the Berkeley protests, set fires and broke windows, and that they are linked to right-wing organizations. Peaceful protests don't suit their agenda, so it's not unexpected that things like that happen.

I expect more events like Berkeley will happen, as the right wing begins to recognize how badly they're losing the hearts and minds of the public.

To qoute Scotty: "Hold on tight, lassie. It gets bumpy from here."

And since my recent posts have generated a lot of uniformed commentary on the Visalia Times Delta's Facebook page, here some important information:

This is not an "article". I am not a journalist. I am not employed by the Visalia Times Delta, and they do not edit or censor or otherwise control, my posts.

I am a "community blogger" and my blog is hosted at the Visalia Times Delta's page, on Gannett's servers. If you want to become a community blogger, contact the Times Delta. This has been available to the public for several years. Take advantage of it, it's fun!

First Amendment quote and image from

US Courts.gov

.

View post:
1st Amendment - Visalia Times-Delta

Protesters move off the Berkeley campus and onto the surrounding streets. (Screen shot via Twitter)

The University of California, Berkeley is known for its decades of progressive protest movementsso its no surprise that the campus experienced widespread protests earlier this week in response to an event that was to feature far-right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos.

The event was canceled after a faction of the demonstrators became violent, NPR reports:

Its far from the first time a Yiannopoulos speaking event was canceled because of protests, which occur regularly at his events.

In a statement, the university said: The violence was instigated by a group of about 150 masked agitators who came onto campus and interrupted an otherwise non-violent protest.

The cancellation of the event prompted President Trump to threaten to cut federal funding from the public university:

Trumps tweet sparked a debate about free speech at a time when many are already wondering if the new administration is suppressing the First Amendment.

Many Democrats were quick to respond to Trumps tweet. Rep. Barbara Lee, who represents Berkeley as part of the 13th District of California, issued a news release Thursday:

Milo Yiannopoulos has made a career of inflaming racist, sexist and nativist sentiments. Berkeley has a proud history of dissent and students were fully within their rights to protest peacefully. I am disappointed by the unacceptable acts of violence by outside agitators which were counterproductive and dangerous.

President Donald Trump cannot bully our university into silence. Simply put, President Trumps empty threat to cut funding from UC Berkeley is an abuse of power. As a senior member of the education funding subcommittee, I will continue to stand up to President Trumps overreach and defend the rights of our students and faculty.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also defended the university. Berkeley is the center of the free speech movement, she said. I think that the protesters have a right to free speech as well. If there is an infiltration of the crowd by those that are less than peaceful, that should be addressed.

And numerous other California representatives jumped in via Twitter:

UC Berkeley students and officials were left reeling from the violence at a campus known for its determined yet peaceful protests. Local NBC affiliate KCRA reports:

It was not a proud night for this campus, school spokesman Dan Mogulof said, later adding, We are proud of our history and legacy as the home of the free-speech movement.

The school prides itself on its liberalism and political correctness, but many on campus pointed to the irony of the historical fight for free speech turning into a suppression of unpopular views today.

Berkeley has always stood for self-expression, said Russell Ude, a 20-year-old football player. Things like this discredit peaceful protest.

Philosophy professor John Searle, a leader of the free-speech movement and professor since 1959, called the cancellation an absolute scandal. He said most of what Yiannopoulos professes is disgusting but that hes entitled to be heard.

Free speech has to be allowed for everyone, Searle said.

Others seem to agree with Searle and have argued that the cancellation of Yiannopoulos event represents a threat to free speech.

Conservative students have the right to bring obnoxious bigots to speak on campus and other students have a right to protest, writes The Atlantics Peter Beinart. But controversial speakers should be allowed to speak.

Others, however, argue that Yiannopoulos doesnt represent a typical political speaker.

Milo is a very unique situation, one Berkeley student told NPR. Milo is an entertainer who has engineered a national tour around provoking college campuses, in order to feed into a narrative that supports this idea that liberal campuses are shutting down free speech.

A student at UC Daviswhere a recent Yiannopoulos event also was canceled after protestssaid that as a transgender person, she would fear for her safety if he came to the campus.

The fear is with the folks who are going to see him, the student told CNN. He leaves. But the folks who are attending [his event] are the folks that I have to sit next to in classrooms.

The First Amendment issue is unlikely to be resolved soon because incendiary far-right figures like Yiannopoulos are coming to the forefront of the political debate ever since former Breitbart chairman Steve Bannon joined the Trump administration.

Arguments about whether to label Bannon, Yiannopoulos and others of their ilk as white nationalists or neo-Nazis have also emerged in recent weeks.

While its unlikely that Trump would be able to cut off UC Berkeleys federal funding, the takeaway from this weeks protests is about more than fiscal issues.

I think we need to have a serious conversation about protests, one Berkeley student said. This is going to be a big part of our lives for the next four years.

Posted by Emma Niles.

More Below the Ad

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Originally posted here:
Emma Niles: UC Berkeley Protests Spark Debate Over First ... - Truthdig

(Photo: Courtney Pedroza/The Republic)

In 1992, a Greenway High Schooljournalism student testified before an Arizona Senate committee in support of a bill to provideincreased First Amendmentprotections to high school journalists. She and her fellow students on the school newspaper inspired the bill after school administrators killed a story and an editorial cartoon.

Twenty-five years later, that student is now a state senator herself and advocating for the very same bill which never passed, despite multiple efforts over the years. She's giving it another try.

Sen. Kimberly Yee, R-Phoenix, introduced Senate Bill 1384, which allows a student journalist at a high school, community college or university to exercise free speech in school-sponsored media. Specifically, it states that student journalists' freedom of speech and of the press are not limited because the media is funded by the school or produced as part of a journalism class.

It also prohibits discipline against a student journalist or a student media adviserwho exercisestheir speech or press freedoms

"I have a very personal history with this bill," Yee said, adding that she wrote stories and drew editorial cartoons as a student. "I'm just trying to get our First Amendment rights exercising in our student papers."

There are limits. The bill concedes that it doesn't authorize media that doesn't comply with written standards for school-sponsored media adopted by the school, or that disrupts the "orderly operation" of the school.It also wouldn't override the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, which stated that schools may refuse to support speech that is inconsistent with their standards.

But even with those limits, students, teachers and Yee advocated for the bill during a Senate Education Committee public hearing Thursday. Yee sits on the committee. The bill passed and now advances to a vote of the full Senate.

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2l109WK

See the rest here:
Arizona student journalists could get 1st Amendment protections - AZCentral.com