Hi, everyone, Have I got a story for the nonprofits today. This
comes from Hemetmeta, our friendly atheist, and it's about how Texas Atheists and
Fort Worth tried to put up ads for an event opposing Christian nationalism but were
rebuffed by the city government. Personally, I think it was the wrong thing
to do, but I'd like to get Scott's opinion on it. Let's what
do you say, Scott? Well, I think clearly this is a constitutional
violation, right, you know, they're they're letting they're letting other nonprofit organizations
as long as they you know, jumped through the hoops and they satisfy the
requirements they're allowed to advertise their um, their their events. And so this
particular group was singled out, presumably because it was an atheist group that although
Fort Worth is not being very forthcoming as far as you know, the specific
reasons, they were just saying that they didn't satisfy um, you know,
the requirements that they that they needed. But but the same group was they've
they've done it before, and so they know they know what they're doing.
They know, you know, the whatever the paperwork or whatever the steps need
to be done. They're familiar with that, and so it's clear, it's
clear. I mean, it's it's it's silly that we're even having to having
to discuss whether or not this is a free speech violation because it all it
obviously is. Um My question, of course is going to be, well,
why would they do that? I mean, why why would fort Worth
do something that so clearly and obviously will eventually be overturned or ruled against or
or something like that. And um, mally, what do you think about
that? What? Why do you think they're doing that? Why? Indeed,
why why would they do something that is so blatant and is only going
to gather more attention to the cause. Now this is blown up and people
know about it, far more so than they would if they put up banners.
I can't think of a logical reason that they would do this. I
don't think that there is a logical reason, to be perfectly clear, only
illogical ones can account for something like this, and it is. It is
clearly discrimination. There's no way to hide it. They try to dress it
up like they didn't fulfill their requirements. They did. I took a look
online at the requirements and the group fulfilled them perfectly. They're just now having
trouble just now, at this precise moment, I don't know where. I
am definitely not buying it. My thoughts on this are that so I want
to avoid the Godwin's law thing where everything that I don't like is fascism,
right, But you know, I think there's something to that here, because
the fascism playbook is about silencing opposition. And we remember, you know,
the threats to the press under Trump, and we remember what we know that
they're silencing opposition. This is something that has become very well evident, and
fascism is at its essence and astocracy. You know, in Germany it was
the area and here I call it the white picket fence supremacists because that's what
they want. They want to come home from a hard day at the Gali
Gigi Frus factory and put their feet up and have their wife rubbed them while
they drink a cold beer. And that way of life is under attack,
or you know, it's organically fading, I should say. And so they're
thrown out all the steps or thrown out all the stops to attack this,
and you know it's it's just blatant. Sometimes they can't hide it, and
I think this is one such case. I don't know, what do you
think, Chris, I mean, I agree, it's definitely a completely blatant
case of discrimination. What really stuck out to me was it was what three
four years ago, they did the exact same thing, the same group post
banners for another event. Had no problem with it, but there was a
giant public outcry. So I think what we're seeing right now is along the
same lines as all those lawsuits we saw in regarding the last election where they
had no merit. They knew it had no merit, but they had to
they had to show the base, Hey, you know, we're with you.
We're you know, even though we're gonna lose this case, we're with
you. So it's it's you mentioned fascism and you didn't want you know,
it's if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's
probably a duck. Um. So I think that's exactly what it is.
And it's kind of crazy to me that they just sort of invented this sort
of amorphous one rule that they haven't met this time around um, and then
they refused to tell them what that rule is so they can try to amend
their banners. To me, it just doesn't treat um. Yeah, I
agree, I mean, I you know, it seems kind of like just
petty bickering, just like you're not going to play according to my rules,
so screw off. You know, you can't you know, it's I'm going
to change the rules. But I wonder if this is maybe part of a
of a bigger plan. You know, we we've you've heard of the phrase
throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks. And you know, I'm
wondering, and we saw that actually work to good effect in the le v.
Wade case, Right we had Roe v. Wade had established abortion rights
as established law of the land. And but you know, they just kept
chipping away at it, kept chipping away at it until you get that perfect
storm with just the right case, with just the right court, with just
you know, just the right timing and the public opinion and just you know,
just the perfect balance of everything, and then they were able to gain
their victory. And so I wonder if if this is just you know,
let's just keep making them go to court until one of these days there's going
to be a court that rules against and so then that's going to that's gonna
set an established precedent there um. Consistency, of course is no problem for
the people who employ these types of plans, But but really it just shows
a disdain for the whole American legal system altogether. I mean, it's it's
viewed more as something that's to be gained and manipulated to to get a particular
result, rather than starting from base principles and working your way up. You
know, these types of decisions should come from the ground up, not from
the top down. We shouldn't. We should We should look at what's important
in our country, what's legal in our country, what's founding principles in our
country, and then take it from there, not start at the ending point
and then see, okay, well what kind of path can we you know,
can we figure out that will lead us to this desired conclusion? Kelly,
what's your take here? Um? I you know, one of the
things that gets me about this whole thing is that and I think a lot
of probably people who are working for the city who are denying these permits are
probably not Christian nationalists, but they are Christians who love this nation. And
that's a different thing. A lot of people don't understand what Christian nationalists are,
and they are, as Mally pointed out, they are. They are
neo fascists. It's a neo fascist movement that has co opted religious and patriotic
language and symbolism to push a fascist agenda. And it's something that we all
need to stand up and fight against. It has nothing to do with being
a good Christian but and it's actually antithetical to Christian beliefs. Most importantly,
treating people the way you would want to be treated yourself one of the things
I was wondered about, and I'd like to get some feedback from the panel
on this. Do you think that the Metroplex atheists who in the organization who
were singled out on this, do you think that they were singled out?
Do you think that they had been a different organization, or if they were
doing an event that it didn't have to do with Christian nationalism, that this
wouldn't have happened to them. What do you think, Mally? Oh?
Well, absolutely, of course they were singled out. You can tell by
the timing and the lame excuse they got, as you said in Amorphous Rule,
that they were referring to that doesn't exist. I mean, you can
look this stuff up. It's all at domain. Just go ahead and look
and look at their requirements. They fulfilled them. You know, it's it's
awfully suspicious, especially after the first time there was a big hullabaloo and then
the signs are getting vandalized, and of course you know the who's in control
of that particular city government. It's just people that don't want these people to
speak. And it's really ironic because it's about Christian nationalism. The event is
set to call out Christian nationalism, and what is the response the exact thing
that they're complaining about. It's just so ironic. There's no better advertisement for
their event than what happened. So yeah, I think it is definitely about
them. Chris, what do you think, sort of bouncing off something that
Scott said a little earlier back about the Rovywade issue. In the years following
the rov Wade ruling, there were a lot of smaller rulings in states that
we're trying to chip away at those rights, trying to put laws in place,
like trigger laws and things like that. So I think this might very
well be something along those lines. Where they're sort of trying to let you
tread the line, see how far they can go with it. So eventually,
if they can just keep pushing that line and pushing that line and pushing
that line, they can get to where they really want, which is,
if you're going to have anything that is a religious organization, you're not allowed
to advertise. If you're going to have any sort of h anything that has
anything to do with calling out Christian nationalists or anything like that, you're just
not going to be able to hold those sort of events, or at least
advertise them publicly. But I think this is definitely a shot across the bow
in that way. What do you think's got Yeah, I agree, I
think that's definitely what this is. And what worries me the most here is
that now they're not even trying to hide it. Like you know, we
started out talking about how this was obviously I mean, it's so it's there's
lots in the news these days that you can see that can go either way.
This is not one of those things, and so it was clearly a
violation of this particular group. Well, I suppose we are assuming that that
they haven't been doing this to other groups. I mean, none of the
none of my research turned up any any other groups that were affected or even
other instances of this group. We're not target and so it was this one
time with this one group. And so it's clearly a timing thing. Um,
it seems really obvious that this is happening, but it you know,
it's it's not so much that this kind of thing is happening, because this
is kind of thing has always been happening. But now it's like they're not
even they're not even trying to hide it. It's like there it's like the
the flaunting and the and the throwing it in the face and the shooting across
the bottle. Like Chris was saying, like that's part of the feature,
right, that's the feature, not a bug. It gets it gets noticed,
it gets it shows. Um. I think it was Malle that was
talking about signaling to their base that you know, here, we're we're doing
what you wanted us to do. We're we're we're standing up, we're fighting
the good fight against these heathens and and um, and I don't know,
it just doesn't seem I don't know, it doesn't seem very American to me.
And you know, and if this is a sign of the times,
I don't think it's voting well for for the American political or legal system.
Of of course, you know people say that in every year, but uh,
you know, I guess I'm one of those people. Now it's I'm
saying that about now, So that's kind of my team, all right.
Then, Um, of the things I noticed that when I would because I
read a lot of the news, believe it or not count the nonprofits.
There was actually an event put on by a secular group in Tulsa or Oklahoma
City, I'm sorry Oklahoma City the last week, and they went off with
out a hitch. They actually did it at a church. They talked about
Christian nationalism, and they didn't have any problem with the national or the local
government. So I really have a problem with what's going on here in Fort
Worth. It. I don't think it's right at all. I'm hoping that
the Metroplex atheists solved this. I don't know what kind of outcome they're looking
for. I was wondering what people here thought might be a good outcome.
I know, getting their banners up in time for the event would be the
best outcome, and I know they're going to court for a temporary injunction to
get those banners put back up. But in the long term, what do
you think would be a good resolution on this, Malley? Well, a
good resolution obviously, you know they want to get their banners up. As
far as this particular event, I you know, I think that they've got
everything they had asked for with all the publicity. Um, you know,
all the publicity is worth a lot more than you know, any amount of
banners. I think they're gonna They're gonna see a great turnout. I'm interested
in an outcome, though, a wider breadth outcome, and I was very
pleased to see that. But you just talked about INTELSA happened in a church,
and you know, we need Christian allies in this fight. They are
invaluable and there are plenty of them out there that see what's happening and they
want no part of it because they know it's not very christ like not to
cut in. But there was actually a minister speaking at the Metroplex Atheist seminar
too, So what we need that is what we need, absolutely, And
my gosh, I mean, you know, it's like how straight people need
to be allies for the lgbtq Q community and how black people need white people
in their corner. You know they can't. It's of course they can do
it on their own, but we have to be allies, and we need
the Christian allies. Ally, ship is really, really really important. Christians
are a majority, just like white people or straight people are, and they
hold the keys to power. And you know, if we can convince them
to be a little bit more like Jesus in a little bit less like old
Donnie T, I think we're going to have a lot better results. Chris,
Yeah, No, I agree one hundred percent. Ally, ship with
Christians that are that are as much about free speech, more about free speech
than they are about promoting and their own their own ends, um, which
may or may not be their specific ends in this instance. UM. I
think a really good um turnout for this, or a really good ending for
this is going to be, honestly, what we're starting to see already,
which is just the visibility of this kind of a fight, uh and hopefully
seeing some sort of ruling. I mean, I really hope that this makes
its way all the way up to this Opreame Court and we have to have
some sort of a ruling where this sort of thing can't go on. Um,
just laying down some sort of a foundation for freedom of speech in this
sort of context that's across the board, can't be uh, can't be misinterpreted
or anything like that. Scott, Yeah, I exactly, And I think
and part of that is going to be to to reframe the conversation here.
Um. You know there there's there's really kind of two two conflicts happening here.
We have the Christian uh conservative Christian group or whatever you want to call
it, is against this uh, this atheist group. That's what they're there.
That's the that's the battle they're fighting, right, and the in the
battle that we're looking at is the First Amendment issue, right, it's the
it's a freedom of speech. And so I think we need to focus on
um, you know, and we see this tactic used so often, you
know, kind of a wolf in sheep's clothing kind of kind of set up,
you know, we they're they're pushing it as as one type of issue,
but really what's happening is a particular type of discrimination. And so I
think it's I think we need to frame ideally an outcome from an event like
this or from a conflict like this, would be that you know, now
we see the cockroaches scurring across the floor, and now we see the cards
are on the table, and now we see what's going on. You know,
I obviously you know it's going to be different for different situations. You
know, different events like this that happen will have more or less of an
effect. But I would like to see things rolling in that direction. Let's
there's one thing that annoys me so much is that it's ambiguous language. It's
people kind of clouding what they're saying with a wink and a nudge when they're
really saying something else. And so let's let's just lay it out there,
let's talk about what we're talking about here, and let's make a wise and
sound decision based off of that. Yeah, like Chris said, I mean,
they're still quacking like a bigot, right, And that's if it quacks
like a biggot, it's still a biggot. So no matter how they try
to hide the language or couch the language, and I always find it kind
of funny that they think that they're hiding what they're saying, but we all
know what they're saying, we all hear the dog whistles that. I find
it kind of his plausible. I guess. There you go, plausible deniability.
There you go. So, yeah, what what do you do You
think there's any just real, real quick, does anybody think there's something we
can do to prevent something like this happening again in the future. Yeah,
that'll be it. You know, just what we're doing now talking about it,
bringing it to people's attention. You know what this group is doing with
uh, you know, filing their their lawsuit or fighting their legal battle there.
I mean, that's just yeah, vigilance and not don't let it get
swept under the rug, because you know, we know where we're on a
twenty four hour news cycle these days, and so it's very easy to forget
things and move on to things and so on. So you know, keep
these important issues in the in the headlights. I think this is a good
example of a small group of people standing up and actually getting something done that
for for a good cause. I'm always talking about standing up and doing things,
and it doesn't take much. When you have a small group of people,
it takes even less because you're sharing the work. And this is a
really good example of that. I think you know what. This has been
a great segment. I had a great time, and thank you for watching.
And if you'd like more than nonprofits, you can click right here.