















































































































































This is the fundamentalist Christian nationalist religious majority trying hard to find a reason that violating any religion not christianity was OK. They do not deny that the man’s religious beliefs were violated and ignored even after the courts had ruled to protect them. That shows a bias against the non-Christian religions. The SCOTUS has no qualms lying and using false misleading inform to create ruling in favor of the Christian religion and those that want to push / force it on to everyone else in the country. Hugs
https://www.alternet.org/supreme-court-backfire/
For more than two decades, the Supreme Court has issued a long series of wins for plaintiffs seeking to protect their religious practices. On June 23, 2026, though, the majority delivered an uncommon defeat in this contentious area.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Public Education and Safety, a 6-3 judgment, rejected the claim of Damon Landor, a Rastafarian whose hair was forcibly shaved in prison. Landor had worn long dreadlocks for almost 20 years as an expression of his beliefs – part of a biblical practice known as the “Nazarite vow.” Like lower court judges, the Supreme Court did not dispute that officials violated Landor’s rights. However, the high court’s majority ruled that he could not sue individual officials at the prison.
The case stands out for at least three other reasons.
First, Landor v. Louisiana underscores the complexity and far-reaching nature of religious freedom laws in the United States and the increasingly diverse faith traditions to which they apply. Christians now represent 62% of the American population, down from 78% in 2007, while 29% have no religious affiliation and 7% belong to other faith traditions.
Second, Landor’s case gained support from many groups typically at odds over how to protect religious freedoms – groups disappointed with this week’s decision.
Finally, the case highlights the religious rights of the nearly 2 million people in U.S. prisons, jails and detention and correctional facilities – and the challenge of holding their public employees accountable when those rights are violated.
Religious vow
Landor was incarcerated in Louisiana in 2020 for possessing methamphetamine, cocaine, amphetamine and marijuana.
At first, officials respected his religious practice. Just three years earlier, a federal appeals court affirmed that Rastafarian inmates must be allowed to keep their dreadlocks under a federal law passed in 2000: the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Toward the end of his sentence, Landor was transferred to a different correctional facility in the state. There – with three weeks left for Landor to serve – the warden ignored the judicial order, directing guards to shackle Landor and forcibly shave his head.
After finishing his sentence, Landor filed suit for money damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The act forbids the government and its officials from imposing “substantial burden(s)” on incarcerated people’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. It also protects religious groups from discrimination through zoning restrictions.
Journey through the courts
In 2022, a federal trial court in Louisiana condemned Landor’s treatment but rejected his claim, concluding that money damages were not an appropriate remedy under the act.
The following year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “emphatically condemn(ed) the treatment that Landor endured.” However, the panel unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision, based on its earlier ruling that plaintiffs cannot sue government officials in their individual capacities for monetary damages – only the institution.
Landor’s attorneys then sought an “en banc” hearing. In this uncommon procedure, parties seek further review by all of the judges in a federal circuit. The court denied this request, as a majority of judges in the circuit wrote that this was a question for the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal after a variety of organizations, including the federal government, submitted amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs in favor of Landor. These included Americans United for Separation of Church and State, for example, which typically supports plaintiffs wishing to keep religion out of public life. They also included the Becket Fund, which usually represents people seeking to increase faith’s role in public life, and the Trump administration.
At issue was not whether Landor’s rights had been violated but whether he could sue an individual official, namely the warden, for monetary damages. During oral arguments on Nov. 10, 2025, the Supreme Court seemed skeptical.
Legal dilemma
That skepticism was reflected in the court’s ultimate ruling. It was essentially a procedural ruling about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act rather than a judgment on the merits of Landor’s religious freedom claim.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The majority’s argument that Landor could not sue centered on the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution – the source of Congress’ authority to create the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The spending clause allows the legislature to spend money to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States.” If a state or institution uses federal funds, their officials agree to certain conditions; if they violate those conditions, Congress can remove funding.
But the spending clause does not give Congress authority to hold individual employees accountable, Gorsuch argued in his 18-page opinion. Prison officials had not “voluntarily and knowingly consented to answer private suits” under the act, and so they could not be held directly liable for monetary damages. Otherwise, Congress would have “effectively unbridled police power.”
Jackson’s 29-page dissent disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the spending clause. The ruling, she contended, “jettisons ‘a long line of this Court’s precedents’” under which “Congress has been able to use its spending power to reach beyond direct recipients of federal funds.” As such, she worried that the court’s order imposed a “novel consent requirement.”
Jackson also lamented the decision’s potential consequences for inmates. Although the goal of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was to protect prisoners’ faith practices, she worried that people “like Landor who suffer violations of their religious freedom in state prisons – no matter how blatant – will often be left remediless.”
Bigger picture
At a glance, the Landor case appears to be a procedural disagreement rather than one over religious freedom.
However, I argue Landor v. Louisiana must be viewed as a setback for religious liberty, raising a serious question about whether minority faiths have as much protection under the First Amendment as larger religions. The decision is also something of a surprise to me, because the Supreme Court has recently upheld free exercise rights in multiple high-profile cases, almost all of which involve Christianity – such as a football coach’s ability to pray on the field after public school games.
Portions of this article originally appeared in a previous article published on Nov. 6, 2025.
Charles J. Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education and Research Professor of Law, University of Dayton
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Wow. There is a lot of historic information in this video. The author / presenter has quick cuts to other personality characters she plays to highlight the absurdity of some positions held by the hierarchy. She delvesdeeply into the idea of what is proper femininity, who steps outside it, and who thinks they are responsible for judging or enforcing it. She delves into how many fights against change and equality are about fears by men of emasculation. The lowering of men’s status. When she elaborates on suffrage, all the fears seem to be that allowing women to vote would give women the right to be men and force men to be women. Seem familure? She goes into detail on how each repressive opressive responce to equal rights comes down to the same phrases such as save the children, save the family, or the claims that society it self will end. The clips she intersperses go by far too quickly so I had to stop the video to read them but she does describe what is on them. The begining was choppy and it took me a bit to get her style of presentation but once I did I found it very informative fillwed with facts, history, and fun to watch. Hugs
The transgender bathroom ‘debate’ isn’t new (but it is stupid). I’m looking at you TERF’s…
Looking back through history, gender politics is consistently entangled with race, class, misogyny, and disability. Minority groups existing outside the ‘norm’ are attacked as ‘radicals’ or menaces to society…
But what prevails each time we face oppression AND causes real change in our society?




























Bloomberg: Lutnick Forced Delay In Opening New Canada-US Bridge To Seek Bigger Cut Of Toll Revenue


























The below is sickening. All slurs, bigotry attacks, and lies but not on discussion of policies. It is all culture wars misinformation to gin up outrage built on lies and misinformation. Hugs





































June 27, 2026
The New York Times reports:
On the first day of the Great American State Fair on the National Mall, there were no butter sculptures, blue-ribbon livestock or prizewinning rutabaga pies to admire. But visitors could take in a gleaming portrait of President Trump, pick up a handbill promoting Turning Point USA and hear a speaker read a poem declaring every teen to be “a conscript in a spiritual world war.”
Volunteers with the River at Tampa Bay Church in Florida approached people asking if they knew that “Jesus loves you and has a plan for you.” Literature was distributed proclaiming that Mr. Trump was leading the “Great American Comeback.” Exhibitors included Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian institution, and the Museum of the Bible. On the edge of the grounds, performers sang hymns in a worship tent.
Under a sweltering sun, attendance was sparse, and power failures did not help — by Thursday night, the Ferris wheel had been out of commission for hours. Across from that ride, visitors could look at a smaller-scale model of Mr. Trump’s proposed 250-foot triumphal arch. Its vinyl covering — stapled over a wood frame and emblazoned with the words “One Nation Under God” — had already started buckling.
Civil War Memories reports:
Nobody who has been paying attention to the Trump administration’s handling of America’s 250th anniversary should be surprised that a Confederate flag turned up at the Great American State Fair on the National Mall. It was discovered at the North Carolina booth and in its own small way tells you everything you need to know about this whole production.
The controversy erupted after footage circulated showing the North Carolina exhibit featuring altered versions of the state flag with the Confederate battle emblem superimposed over the design. Governor Josh Stein’s office condemned the display, calling it a misrepresentation of North Carolina and demanding that organizers remove it.
North Carolina’s official state flag has never included the Confederate battle symbol in any version of its design. Not in 1861, not in 1885, not ever. Whoever put together that video display didn’t just stumble into Lost Cause territory by accident. They had to go out of their way to attach a symbol that the state itself had never chosen to fly.
Eleven states declined to participate and Freedom 250 chose local groups from each state to fill the booths. Videos on social media show baptisms being performed in a tent.
These complete no exception bans have pretend exceptions that no doctor can trust. These paws and the people who push them do not see a woman as a whole real person, just a vessel for a possible offspring. Women are dying when there is no viable fetus to protect because these laws do not see women as people. Only men are human people. Plus these laws are pushed by religious fanatics and not doctors. Hugs
Texas resident Lynn Callaway filed a federal complaint against two Texas area hospitals that denied her treatment while she was having a miscarriage. “It has been a whirlwind, very traumatic,” Callaway said. In order to treat her miscarriage, she needed to receive the same procedure used in abortions. “I was someone who also did not realize that the abortion ban, particularly how it bans the pill, as well as the D&C, could also impact miscarriage care. That just never came to my mind, and that’s why it’s very important to understand these laws and understand how they impact everyone.”
In this video Dan hits back on the myth that in the bible / god will any sex outside of marriage is a sin. He shows how many different sexual acts and groupings were included as Ok for the morality of the time. I am listening to Separation of church and hate by John Fugelsang. In the book he explains that the bible is a collection of writings written for the people of that time, the culture of that time, and about the morality accepted at that time. He shares examples where different authors flat out disagree with each other, but they were separated by ceneriesin time. Dan mentions something like that here and how each author had their own view of sex and what was moral. He explains sexual agency and how in the bible for it to be considered sex a penis needed to be involved going into an orifice of some person with lesser status than the man with the active penis. I like at the end where he talks of the dangers and torments of telling developing children going through puberty that simply touching themselves is a sin, makes them an abomination to god, and will condemn them to hell. Hugs


























































































This is horrific and I believe I already posted on it once. Ron and I talked about it at length. Hug ————————————————————————————————————————————
Buttigieg says his family was target of ‘politically motivated hoax’
The former transportation secretary described it as “the ugliest thing that has happened to me since my career in service began.”
Pete Buttigieg, former secretary of transportation, during the National Action Network 35th Anniversary Convention on April 10, 2026, in New York City.Adam Gray / Bloomberg via Getty Images
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said his family has been targeted in a “politically motivated hoax” after someone made what police characterized as a false report to Child Protective Services alleging he committed crimes against his children.
In a Substack post Friday, Buttigieg wrote that an anonymous caller reported to CPS that his 4-year-old twins he shares with his husband, Chasten, were “at risk.”
“The caller said that he had spoken to a woman who claimed to have met me at a conference several years ago in Alabama, where she said I told her that I had committed unspeakable violent crimes, and the caller believed my children were still at risk,” Buttigieg wrote.
Buttigieg, a prominent Democrat and potential 2028 presidential contender, likened the incident to “swatting” — when someone calls 911 to falsely report an immediate threat, often at a public figure’s home — “but with Child Protective Services instead of a SWAT team.”
As a result of the allegation, Buttigieg said a CPS worker told him he could not be around his children unsupervised for 24 hours while the allegation was investigated. He and his husband dropped the children off with their grandparents for the night, beginning what Buttigieg described as “among the darkest hours of my life.”
He said the children were also interviewed by CPS the following day.
The CPS worker assigned to the case did not find anything to substantiate the allegation, Buttigieg said, adding that he doesn’t know the identity of the person who made the accusation.
The police officer on the case “made clear that he believed this was politically motivated, and said it would not be referred to a prosecutor,” Buttigieg wrote. “Nothing in the forensic interview with the children, which was conducted by trained personnel, had led to concerns.”
In a statement provided to MS NOW on Friday afternoon, the Michigan State Police confirmed receiving an “anonymous report” in the case, adding that police and CPS workers determined it was false.
“False reports are dangerous and divert law enforcement officers and Child Protective Services workers from responding to legitimate emergencies and protecting vulnerable children and families,” the state police said.
In his Substack, Buttigieg characterized the incident as part of broader rise in political violence that leaders on both sides of the aisle face. He called it the worst thing he experienced in politics to date.
“Many times over the years, I have been denounced, yelled at, protested, threatened, and heckled,” Buttigieg wrote. “I’ve been through political attacks in office, death threats in public life, and rocket attacks in war. But this is the ugliest thing that has happened to me since my career in service began.”
“For twenty-four deeply distressing hours,” he continued, “we had no idea what I was accused of or what was about to happen. We could not understand someone abusing the system like this in order to hurt me and my family with an absurd and easily refuted allegation of a horrific crime.”
He also suggested homophobia may have motivated the incident, noting that it occurred during Pride month, which conservatives have long attacked , soon after he posted a photo of his family on Instagram to celebrate Father’s Day. Buttigieg has been subject to homophobic remarks from high-profile officials during his time in the public eye, including from former Vice President Mike Pence, who mocked his decision to take parental leave while serving as transportation secretary, and former co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party, Meshawn Maddock, who called him “a weak little girl” in 2022.
As Buttigieg noted on Substack, making a false report of felony child abuse is a crime under Michigan state law, punishable by a fine of up to four years in prison or a fine of up to $2,000, or both.
Buttigieg was slated to campaign in Tucson this Sunday for JoAnna Mendoza, a Democratic candidate for the state’s 6th Congressional District, but he has canceled the trip, Tucson.com reported.
Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the local prosecutor’s office representing the county where Buttigieg lives did not immediately respond to questions from MS NOW on Friday afternoon. The Michigan Attorney General’s Office declined to comment.
Lisa Rubin contributed reporting.
Hayley Meissner is the senior producer for MS NOW’s Breaking News and Blogs team.
June 26, 2026
The Hill reports:
A draft final report from President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission released on Friday calls for “building bridges between church and state,” a seeming reversal of a longstanding U.S. legal principle. “Americans must know their rights and stand with courage when those rights are challenged,” the commission’s report reads.
“To preserve this freedom, we must build bridges, not walls, between the City of God and the City of Man. If we do so, we will pass on a free and prosperous nation to the next generation,” it continues.
The argument is a stark reversal of the legal principle that calls for the separation of church and state. The phrase “separation of church and state” does not explicitly appear in the Constitution, but the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Read the full article.
The commission is chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who recently declared that James Talarico is going to hell.
Today he said, “From this day forward, the phrase separation of church and state has no power.”