Atheists Helping the Homeless DC
LightNews LightNews
banner
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC
@atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
100 followers 240 following 270 posts
A non-profit organization with one mission: to help people experiencing homelessness in the DC region https://atheistshelping.org/
atheistshelping.org
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 30m
More apt today than two days ago. Oh bother....

#AtheistSky
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 2d
Limitations or incursions on reproductive rights or LGBT rights can only be justified through religious reasoning.

For example, Someone may claim to be an atheist, but if they profess anti-trans views, they have left atheism behind and the label doesn't fully apply to them any longer.

#atheism
Reposted by Atheists Helping the Homeless DC
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 9h
Once again, it must be pointed out that without religion, there is no justification to limit trans rights.

Any such limits are unquestionable violations of the first amendment.

#atheism
#nokings
#nogods
#seculargovernment
stevevladeck.bsky.social Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 16h
#BREAKING: #SCOTUS grants yet another stay to the Trump administration, putting back into place a new State Department policy requiring passports to display their bearers' biological sex at birth.

Justice Jackson (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) once again dissents.
1
Reposted by Atheists Helping the Homeless DC
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 9h
Again, trans discrimination is founded solely on religious grounds. Without religion, there is no "debate" as described in this ruling. This is the court clearly violating Americans free exercise of religion. #atheism
chrisgeidner.bsky.social Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 9h
BREAKING: The Sixth Circuit, in a 10-7 en banc decision, holds that an Ohio school district's anti-bullying policy that requires students to use children's preferred pronouns is likely unconstitutional on these facts.

Judge Murphy, a Trump appointee, writes the court's decision.
OPINION MURPHY, Circuit Judge. An Ohio public school district bars its students from referring to transgender and nonbinary classmates using the pronouns that match their biological sex if the classmates prefer to go by different pronouns. The plaintiff in this case has parent and student members who believe that a person's sex is immutable. The members want to express this view by using biological pronouns. And they believe that they would convey a falsehood —that a person's gender is fluid—if they use preferred pronouns. So the plaintiff challenged the school district's speech ban on behalf of its members under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. This case about pronouns pits two important interests against each other. On the one hand, the school district has prohibited speech (biological pronouns) that expresses a message on a matter of pressing public concern. And because the district requires other speech (preferred pronouns) that expresses a competing view, it has discriminated based on its students' viewpoints. Its approach thus raises serious free-speech concerns. On the other hand, the school district rightly responds that it has a duty to protect all students- including transgender and nonbinary students— from bullying and harassment. And this protection, while necessarily restricting speech, does not violate the Free Speech Clause. So which of these competing concerns should prevail in this case? The Supreme Court's cases provide a clear answer. A school district may not restrict personal speech on matters of public concern unless the speech would "materially and substantially disrupt" school activities or infringe the legal "rights of others" in the school community. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969). In this case's current posture, the school district has fallen far short of meeting this demanding standard. It introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law. Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights. The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view. We thus reverse and remand Case: 23-3630 Document: 253-2 Filed: 11/06/2025 Page: 4 No. 23-3630 Defending Educ. v. Olentangy Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., et al. Page 4 for the entry of an appropriately tailored preliminary injunction barring the district from punishing students for the commonplace use of biological pronouns. Yet nothing we say here forecloses the district from enforcing its anti-harassment policies against the abuse of transgender students just as it enforces those policies against the abuse of all other students.
1
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 9h
Again, trans discrimination is founded solely on religious grounds. Without religion, there is no "debate" as described in this ruling. This is the court clearly violating Americans free exercise of religion. #atheism
chrisgeidner.bsky.social Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 9h
BREAKING: The Sixth Circuit, in a 10-7 en banc decision, holds that an Ohio school district's anti-bullying policy that requires students to use children's preferred pronouns is likely unconstitutional on these facts.

Judge Murphy, a Trump appointee, writes the court's decision.
OPINION MURPHY, Circuit Judge. An Ohio public school district bars its students from referring to transgender and nonbinary classmates using the pronouns that match their biological sex if the classmates prefer to go by different pronouns. The plaintiff in this case has parent and student members who believe that a person's sex is immutable. The members want to express this view by using biological pronouns. And they believe that they would convey a falsehood —that a person's gender is fluid—if they use preferred pronouns. So the plaintiff challenged the school district's speech ban on behalf of its members under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. This case about pronouns pits two important interests against each other. On the one hand, the school district has prohibited speech (biological pronouns) that expresses a message on a matter of pressing public concern. And because the district requires other speech (preferred pronouns) that expresses a competing view, it has discriminated based on its students' viewpoints. Its approach thus raises serious free-speech concerns. On the other hand, the school district rightly responds that it has a duty to protect all students- including transgender and nonbinary students— from bullying and harassment. And this protection, while necessarily restricting speech, does not violate the Free Speech Clause. So which of these competing concerns should prevail in this case? The Supreme Court's cases provide a clear answer. A school district may not restrict personal speech on matters of public concern unless the speech would "materially and substantially disrupt" school activities or infringe the legal "rights of others" in the school community. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969). In this case's current posture, the school district has fallen far short of meeting this demanding standard. It introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law. Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights. The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view. We thus reverse and remand Case: 23-3630 Document: 253-2 Filed: 11/06/2025 Page: 4 No. 23-3630 Defending Educ. v. Olentangy Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., et al. Page 4 for the entry of an appropriately tailored preliminary injunction barring the district from punishing students for the commonplace use of biological pronouns. Yet nothing we say here forecloses the district from enforcing its anti-harassment policies against the abuse of transgender students just as it enforces those policies against the abuse of all other students.
1
Reposted by Atheists Helping the Homeless DC
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 9h
BREAKING: The Sixth Circuit, in a 10-7 en banc decision, holds that an Ohio school district's anti-bullying policy that requires students to use children's preferred pronouns is likely unconstitutional on these facts.

Judge Murphy, a Trump appointee, writes the court's decision.
OPINION MURPHY, Circuit Judge. An Ohio public school district bars its students from referring to transgender and nonbinary classmates using the pronouns that match their biological sex if the classmates prefer to go by different pronouns. The plaintiff in this case has parent and student members who believe that a person's sex is immutable. The members want to express this view by using biological pronouns. And they believe that they would convey a falsehood —that a person's gender is fluid—if they use preferred pronouns. So the plaintiff challenged the school district's speech ban on behalf of its members under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. This case about pronouns pits two important interests against each other. On the one hand, the school district has prohibited speech (biological pronouns) that expresses a message on a matter of pressing public concern. And because the district requires other speech (preferred pronouns) that expresses a competing view, it has discriminated based on its students' viewpoints. Its approach thus raises serious free-speech concerns. On the other hand, the school district rightly responds that it has a duty to protect all students- including transgender and nonbinary students— from bullying and harassment. And this protection, while necessarily restricting speech, does not violate the Free Speech Clause. So which of these competing concerns should prevail in this case? The Supreme Court's cases provide a clear answer. A school district may not restrict personal speech on matters of public concern unless the speech would "materially and substantially disrupt" school activities or infringe the legal "rights of others" in the school community. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969). In this case's current posture, the school district has fallen far short of meeting this demanding standard. It introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law. Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights. The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view. We thus reverse and remand Case: 23-3630 Document: 253-2 Filed: 11/06/2025 Page: 4 No. 23-3630 Defending Educ. v. Olentangy Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., et al. Page 4 for the entry of an appropriately tailored preliminary injunction barring the district from punishing students for the commonplace use of biological pronouns. Yet nothing we say here forecloses the district from enforcing its anti-harassment policies against the abuse of transgender students just as it enforces those policies against the abuse of all other students.
43 150 490
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 9h
We live in a theocracy. Religion has defeated the Constitution.
1 8
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 9h
Once again, it must be pointed out that without religion, there is no justification to limit trans rights.

Any such limits are unquestionable violations of the first amendment.

#atheism
#nokings
#nogods
#seculargovernment
stevevladeck.bsky.social Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 16h
#BREAKING: #SCOTUS grants yet another stay to the Trump administration, putting back into place a new State Department policy requiring passports to display their bearers' biological sex at birth.

Justice Jackson (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) once again dissents.
1
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 1d
Which belies an understanding of the history and current state of Christianity.
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 1d
"The Lord works in mysterious ways."
5
Reposted by Atheists Helping the Homeless DC
secularstudents.bsky.social
Secular Students @secularstudents.bsky.social · 2d
Meet Saoirse, Philly student & civic leader 🗳️

An atheist & first-gen American, she’s fighting for secular government, civic literacy, & youth engagement through @VoteThatJawn & GOTV efforts.

Her #SecularActivistScholarship helps her lead change. 💛
🔗 secularstudents.org/scholarships
1 4
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 2d
Limitations or incursions on reproductive rights or LGBT rights can only be justified through religious reasoning.

For example, Someone may claim to be an atheist, but if they profess anti-trans views, they have left atheism behind and the label doesn't fully apply to them any longer.

#atheism
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 2d
People are using the same religion as fervently to justify the arrests.

Religion can't provide a path out of this situation.
2
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 4d
"it is not for them to judge"
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 4d
What about....ummm.... the constitution
1 8
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 4d
In Christianity, love of God comes first, charity after (if at all). It can easily lead to this. True charity emerges from secularism.
rlstollar.bsky.social R.L. Stollar @rlstollar.bsky.social · 4d
Evangelicals are hot for starving kids.
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 4d
It's still very common to see legal scholars and political science experts of all stripes pretending that it's worthy of serious academic discussion.
1
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 4d
calling it a "theory" is giving it a lot of credit
1 7
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 4d
The Constitution guarantees the right to exercise religion freely. This means in the US, people have the right to NOT exercise religion. It is illegal for the government to use your resources to promote religion.

Yet here we are.

Religious people should call this out.

#AtheistSky
#Atheism
onestpress.onestnetwork.com Olga Nesterova @onestpress.onestnetwork.com · 4d
Add a dose of propaganda to your morning coffee.. This smells of Russian-like “special operation”
1 1 3
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 4d
Once one believes things in which there is no evidence, the rest of this is easy
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 5d
5,033,350,000,305 days we know of that reality has existed. And we know that no gods or supernatural things have been revealed in that whole time.

#AtheistSky
#Atheism
#Charity
#Humanism
1 2
Reposted by Atheists Helping the Homeless DC
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 5d
If there was a loving God, we wouldn't need SNAP.

What does that mean?

It means that all Americans have a chance to love as people say God should.

Take care of your neighbors during this time. Make sure they have enough to eat. Life is everything.

#Atheism
#NoKingsNoGods
1
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 5d
#Camus #Caturday
This heart within me I can feel, this world i can touch, there ends all my knowledge
atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social
Atheists Helping the Homeless DC @atheistshelpingdc.bsky.social · 5d
If there was a loving God, we wouldn't need SNAP.

What does that mean?

It means that all Americans have a chance to love as people say God should.

Take care of your neighbors during this time. Make sure they have enough to eat. Life is everything.

#Atheism
#NoKingsNoGods
1
Reposted by Atheists Helping the Homeless DC
chuckassplanet.bsky.social
Charlotte “Chuck” Planet, Local Internet Celebrity @chuckassplanet.bsky.social · 5d
athiest Xmas is the acknowledgment that Christmas has been cursed by consumerism but without a winter holiday, we would all be depressed. it’s a time for crafting and thoughtfulness and a focus on making other people feel joy and holiday magic without just buying a bunch of plastic shit
1 8
Reposted by Atheists Helping the Homeless DC
godlessbitch.bsky.social
godlessbitch.bsky.social @godlessbitch.bsky.social · 6d
I. Am. A. Humanist.

Are you⁉️
9 17 86