What Amos Reveals About Selective Outrage in America's First Amendment Wars

When Your Timeline Exposes the Hypocrisy You've Been Feeling

Jun 03, 2025

You've watched it unfold on your timeline, haven't you? Within hours of news breaking about FCC investigations and student visa revocations, your feeds exploded with passionate First Amendment defenders. The same voices that had been conspicuously silent when Christian bakers faced lawsuits for operating according to their convictions,⁸ pregnancy centers were forced to advertise abortion services,⁹ and faith-based adoption agencies shut down rather than compromise their beliefs.¹⁰

The Irony You Felt Before You Could Name It

When Constitutional Champions Suddenly Appeared

You felt the irony before you could even name it. These sudden champions of free speech hadn't uttered a word during years of attacks on biblical communities. Now they've discovered the sanctity of constitutional rights, but only when it affects their preferred causes.

If you've been frustrated by this selective outrage, you're in good company. This pattern isn't new; it's as old as human nature itself, and the prophet Amos saw it coming from 2,800 years away.

When Justice Becomes a Weapon of Convenience

Amos Saw This Coming

Amos lived in an era that would feel familiar to us. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was experiencing unprecedented prosperity, technological advancement, and cultural influence. Sound familiar? Yet beneath the surface, justice had become a commodity that the powerful wielded when it served their interests and ignored when it didn't.

Listen to Amos's scathing indictment: "You turn justice into bitterness and cast righteousness to the ground" (Amos 5:7 NIV).¹ The Hebrew word for "turn" here is haphak, meaning to overturn or pervert completely.² Amos wasn't describing people who occasionally bent the rules; he was exposing a systematic perversion where justice itself had been weaponized.

The religious elite of Amos's day performed all the right rituals. They attended festivals, offered sacrifices, and sang worship songs. But when it came to defending the defenseless, protecting the vulnerable, or maintaining consistent principles? Crickets. They'd cry "persecution" when their own interests were threatened while simultaneously crushing those who couldn't fight back.

"I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them." (Amos 5:21-22 NIV)

God's response was volcanic. Not because he opposed worship, but because their selective application of justice made their worship a mockery.

The Pattern We Can't Ignore

A Timeline of Convenient Silence

Fast-forward to today's First Amendment battles, and the pattern Amos exposed is playing out with stunning clarity. You've witnessed this yourself. The same voices now lamenting investigations into media coverage were notably absent when Christian business owners faced regulatory harassment for operating according to their convictions.³ They said nothing when faith-based universities encountered Title IX investigations that threatened their religious identity.¹²

Where were these constitutional champions when pro-life pregnancy centers were legally compelled to advertise abortion services? They remained silent as religious adoption agencies closed rather than violate their theological commitments.⁴ Most recently, they watched without comment as churches faced unprecedented government restrictions during COVID while other gatherings continued unimpeded.

Recent actions by the Trump administration have validated these concerns about selective First Amendment enforcement. FCC Chair Brendan Carr has reopened investigations into ABC, CBS, and NBC over their 2024 election coverage, while simultaneously launching probes into NPR and PBS for alleged sponsorship violations.⁵ The State Department has revoked over 300 student visas targeting those who participated in pro-Palestinian campus protests, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio defending the action by saying students came "to study and get a degree, not to become a social activist."⁶

Don't misunderstand me. Every genuine First Amendment violation deserves our concern, regardless of who's being targeted. That's precisely the point Amos was making. True justice doesn't have favorites; it operates by consistent principles that protect everyone, not just those who share our political preferences.

The biblical principle here cuts both ways. When we defend free speech only for those who agree with us, we're not championing the First Amendment; we're manipulating it. When we invoke religious liberty only when it benefits our side while remaining silent about attacks on others, we've become exactly what Amos condemned.

Biblical Communities Under Siege: A Decades-Long Story

The Fight You've Been Watching Unfold

Here's what the selective outrage crowd often misses: biblical communities have been fighting First Amendment battles for decades¹³ while much of the secular world either ignored or celebrated our losses. You've watched our symbols removed from public spaces, our values excluded from public discourse, and our institutions pressured to abandon core convictions. How many more Christian voices need to be censored and silenced before you wonder when they'll come for yours?

Yet we didn't abandon hope. We didn't retreat into bunkers of bitterness. Instead, we learned something that Amos would recognize: true strength comes from maintaining righteous principles regardless of who's in power.

The Hebrew word Amos uses for justice is mishpat, which refers not to selective enforcement but to the restoration of right relationships according to God's design.⁷ This kind of justice doesn't fluctuate with political winds; it remains constant because it's grounded in God's unchanging character.

The Path Forward: Amos's Framework for Faithful Response

Three Principles That Never Change

So how should we respond as biblical communities when we see First Amendment violations, whether they target us or others? Amos provides a three-part framework that's as relevant today as it was in ancient Israel.

Maintain consistent principles. Amos called Israel to "let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream" (Amos 5:24 NIV). Rivers don't choose which areas to water based on political convenience. Our commitment to constitutional principles should be equally unwavering.

Defend the defenseless. Amos specifically condemned those who "oppress the innocent and take bribes and deprive the poor of justice in the courts" (Amos 5:12 NIV). Our first instinct should be protecting those who lack the power to protect themselves, not just those who share our ideology.

Hold onto hope without naivety. Amos saw clearly that judgment was coming, but he never stopped calling people to repentance and reform. We can acknowledge serious threats to our constitutional order while maintaining confidence that God's purposes will ultimately prevail.

This isn't about being politically neutral (an impossibility for followers of Christ). It's about being biblically consistent in a way that transcends temporary political alignments.

A Hope That Outlasts Headlines

Why This Moment Gives Me Incredible Optimism

Here's what gives me incredible optimism despite the current chaos: the same God who raised up Amos to confront systemic injustice is still at work today. Every time we see selective outrage exposed, every time inconsistent principles are revealed, we're witnessing what Amos called God's plumb line in action (Amos 7:7-8).

The church's calling hasn't changed. We're still called to be the community that models what consistent justice looks like. We're still the people who defend First Amendment principles not because they serve our immediate interests, but because they reflect something deeper about human dignity and God's design for flourishing societies.

When we do this faithfully, we become what Amos envisioned: a community so committed to biblical justice that our very existence challenges everyone else's selective applications of principle. We become living proof that there's a better way than weaponizing rights for temporary political advantage.

The question isn't whether we'll face opposition (we will). The question is whether we'll maintain the kind of consistent, principled witness that eventually wins over even our critics.

Questions Worth Wrestling With:

Where have you noticed selective outrage in your own circles regarding constitutional principles? I'm curious about the moments when you've felt that uncomfortable tension between loyalty and consistency.

How can we better support First Amendment protections for those we disagree with politically? This isn't just theoretical; it's about the practical choices we make when we see others under attack.