SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
separation of church & state
The US Has a Religious Fundamentalism Problem
We condemn extremism abroad while ignoring the holy mandates shaping law, policy, and life right here at home.
Sep 28, 2025
I was a political science student in college when 9-11 happened. Almost overnight, the air in our classrooms thickened with talk of the Middle East—of regimes and sects, of the supposed sickness in other people’s faith. At the same time, I sat in lectures on American government, absorbing lessons on freedom, the separation of church and state, and the principles that anchor a democracy. The story was tidy: Extremism existed “over there,” and here was civility, rationality, liberty.
But even then, I felt the story was too neat. We were trained to see extremism as foreign, an affliction of others. No one asked us to look for it in our own pulpits, in our own chambers of power, where faith is wielded not only as belief but as authority.
For decades, we were told that extremism abroad is born of poverty, oppression, and lack of democracy. That dignity and fair governance could inoculate against violence. Yet here at home, the extremists are not poor. They are not desperate. They are wealthy, white, and privileged, carrying Bibles in one hand and power in the other. These are the people shaping foreign policy, writing the rules of engagement, and insisting that God Himself is on their side.
It is easy to sneer at fundamentalism when it wears a beard and prays to a different God. We do this without noticing how our own leaders claim the same divine sanction. Take Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who recently said, “Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed,” a statement guiding policy on the basis of religious prophecy. As a result, borders are drawn and redrawn, not by maps or treaties, but by the conviction that scripture demands it. Tanks move forward because some believe the end times will be hastened by the blood spilled today. I have heard lawmakers speak of Israel not as a nation among nations, but as a ticket for their own salvation—a stage for the rapture. Lives are traded away for a promise written in ancient ink. Too often, it is prophecy, not policy, that carries the weight of law.
The divine is always invoked to conquer, to exclude, to strip away the humanity of others.
Charlie Kirk was another voice in this chorus. His platform rested on the claim that his words bore the imprint of Jesus Himself. And that is the mark of fundamentalism: not just to speak, but to declare speech holy. Not just to pass laws, but to claim the laws come from God. When movements convince their followers that every act of war, every border drawn, every vote cast is sanctified, fundamentalism is no longer a fringe—it is the system itself.
This is America’s problem. We imagine fundamentalism as the product of religion alone, but in truth it is about power. It thrives in systems that punish dissent and demand obedience. It flourishes where inequality is already deep, where racism already wounds. Whether it calls itself Christian nationalism or Zionism, the fruit is the same: oppression disguised as divine order.
Christian nationalism, in particular, is theater. Fear of the stranger is the script. The Gospels are props—quoted when convenient, discarded when not. The gun becomes holy; violence is celebrated as sacrament; scripture appears only to bless white entitlement and empire. And somehow, the divine is always invoked to conquer, to exclude, to strip away the humanity of others.
“Love the stranger as yourself” has been rewritten into “expel the immigrant.” “Turn the other cheek” has become “press his cheek into the ground.” The inversion is so stark you can only call it blasphemy.
It is time to see the truth we’ve trained ourselves to ignore: that the politics of faith are not a distant problem but a domestic one. That prophecy and scripture are invoked to shape our laws, and our laws shape our lives. That the moral high ground, so often claimed, is little more than a thin veneer of power and entitlement.
We are not exempt from the damage. We are participants in it. And we cannot keep pretending that America’s fundamentalists are not pulling the strings.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Christian Nationalism for Lunch? Thanks, But No Thanks
A new U.S. Office of Personnel Management memo allowing workplace proselytizing is not a great recipe for harmonious and productive coworker relations.
Aug 13, 2025
Imagine you’re a federal civil service employee, reading today’s paper while having a sandwich during your lunch break in the cafeteria. Another federal employee, maybe a coworker or maybe not, sits down beside you and politely begins to tell you why his faith is correct and why yours, actually, isn’t. Sounds annoying, possibly enraging, and presumably inappropriate if not prohibited? Think again.
According to a July 28, 2025 memorandum to the heads of all federal departments and agencies from Scott Kupor, director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), employees “attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views,” including “why the non-adherent should re-think his religious beliefs,” is perfectly okay and even protected religious expression, so long as it falls short of harassment.
As a former federal attorney who worked for the U.S. Labor Department for 39 years, including eight years as a senior executive who ran a regional office, I find this policy disconcerting at best. From the standpoint of office mission effectiveness, maintaining positive and respectful peer-to-peer relationships is crucial. It’s one thing for coworkers, during breaks, to have candid and even heated discussions about sitcoms, musical tastes, or even politics. It’s quite another to laud one’s own spiritual belief and disparage, if not outright insult, another’s. Not a great recipe for harmonious and productive coworker relations.
This right to attempt to convince others that their religious convictions are misguided extends not only to peer coworkers, but to supervisors too. In other words, as you’re enjoying your sandwich in the cafeteria, your supervisor could sit down next to you and explain why your deeply held beliefs happen to be wrong. Not quite so easy to tell them it’s none of their damn business.
The prospect of federal supervisors advising their subordinates that their religious convictions aren’t the “correct” ones becomes dramatically more troubling if supervisors’ tenure is subject to the president’s whims.
But there’s another aspect of this policy that casts an even darker shadow. All this arises in an administration fueled by U.S. President Donald Trump’s vow to “bring back Christianity,” and populated or supported by self-described Christian nationalists like House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Russell Vought, once again head of the powerful Office of Management and Budget.
Christian nationalism means different things to different people, but has a number of core beliefs. A major 2024 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute included five statements designed to measure support for Christian nationalism. The list included:
- God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.
- The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.
- Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.
- If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.
- U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.
The study found that 30% of Americans can be classified as Christian nationalism “adherents” or “sympathizers” (those who fully or mostly agree with the five statements), compared to two-thirds of Americans found to be “skeptics” or “rejecters” (that is, they mostly or fully disagree with the statements). Nevertheless, according to preelection reporting by Politico, “Vought and his ideological brethren would not shy from using their administration positions to promote Christian doctrine and imbue public policy with it.”
According to Christian nationalism expert and history professor Kristin Du Mez, “This is not a pluralist vision for all of America coming together or a vision for compromise… It is a vision for seizing power and using that power to usher in a ‘Christian America.’” She believes that if the Christian nationalist movement gets what it wants, “There will be no meaningful religious liberty. There will be essentially a two-tier society between the quote unquote, real Americans—those who buy into this, or pretend to—and then the rest of Americans.”
Is this latest OPM memo part of a veiled effort to advance a Christian nationalist vision for our country? Consider that the prospect of federal supervisors advising their subordinates that their religious convictions aren’t the “correct” ones becomes dramatically more troubling if supervisors’ tenure is subject to the president’s whims—including, potentially, loyalty to a Vought-endorsed Christian-nationalist-inspired belief system. During Trump’s first term, Vought tried to reclassify tens of thousands of federal workers as political appointees, which would have enabled mass dismissals of those deemed unsuitable. A similar effort is underway this time around. Will espousing Christian nationalism be one of the unstated litmus tests to get, or keep, a supervisory job?
Whether there’s a Christian nationalist agenda lurking behind the OPM memo or not, a better policy for government workers would suggest, if not require, that unless asked, they—and particularly supervisors—keep their judgments of others’ personal belief systems to themselves.
But since the July 28 memo says otherwise, federal employees, please note: As you’re minding your own business munching a tuna salad sandwich at lunch, you might find your supervisor offering a spiritual lesson that wasn’t on the menu. If it works for you, fine. But if it doesn’t go down well, do send it back, with a polite but firm “no thank you.” Assert your freedom of religion, or your freedom not to be religious, while you still have it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
SCOTUS’ Next Move: Taxpayer-Funded Religious Schools?
A landmark case could force taxpayers to fund religious charter schools.
Apr 02, 2025
On April 30, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that could fundamentally reshape public education: Oklahoma’s controversial approval of the nation’s first religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School. The case forces a critical question to the forefront—should taxpayers be compelled to finance religious schools while having no authority to regulate them?
The court’s decision could continue a pattern of rulings that have chipped away at the traditional separation between church and state, transforming the landscape of public education and public funding. If the justices side with St. Isidore, the ruling could mark a turning point in American schooling—one that may erode public accountability, alter funding priorities, and blur the constitutional boundaries that have long defined the relationship between religion and government.
This case builds on a series of decisions from the Roberts Court that have steadily eroded the wall between church and state. In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, the court allowed public funds to be used for secular purposes by religious institutions. Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue expanded this principle, ruling that states cannot exclude religious schools from publicly funded programs. And in Carson v. Makin, the court went further, mandating that state voucher programs include religious schools, arguing that exclusion constitutes discrimination against religion.
As the justices deliberate, they would do well to consider not just the legal arguments, but also the practical and moral consequences of their decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in Carson, stated, “[i]n particular, we have repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.” On its face, this reasoning frames the issue as one of fairness—ensuring religious entities are not treated unequally. But the deeper implications of this logic are far more radical.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in her dissent, this interpretation fundamentally redefines the Free Exercise Clause, equating a government’s refusal to fund religious institutions with unconstitutional religious discrimination. Justice Stephen Breyer took this concern a step further, pointing to the court’s own precedent to highlight the dangerous trajectory of its rulings:
We have previously found, as the majority points out, that “a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” We have thus concluded that a State may, consistent with the Establishment Clause, provide funding to religious schools through a general public funding program if the “government aid… reach[es] religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of… individual [aid] recipients.”
Breyer then underscored the significance of this distinction:
But the key word is “may.” We have never previously held what the court holds today, namely, that a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public school education.
Finally, he distilled the implications into a warning: “What happens once ‘may’ becomes ‘must’?”
That shift—from allowance to obligation—could force states not only to permit religious education in publicly funded programs, but to actively finance it, eroding any semblance of neutrality between public and religious schooling. This transformation threatens to unravel the Establishment Clause’s core protection: that government does not privilege or compel religious exercise.
Now, the Oklahoma case brings Breyer’s warning into sharp focus. The petitioners are asking the court to declare that charter schools are not state actors—meaning they would be free from public accountability and regulations, including those related to discrimination or special education. At the same time, they argue that public funds must be made available to religious charters. The implications of such a ruling could reverberate across the country, reshaping education in profound and troubling ways.
The May-to-Must Transformation and Its Far-Reaching Consequences
If the Court sides with St. Isidore, the ripple effects could be seismic, triggering a wave of religious charter school applications and fundamentally altering the landscape of public education. Here’s how:
- A Surge in Religious Charter Schools
Religious institutions, particularly those struggling to sustain traditional parochial schools, would have a financial lifeline. Charter subsidies, which often surpass voucher amounts, would incentivize religious organizations to enter the charter school market. For years, leaders in some religious communities have sought public funding to buoy their schools, and a decision in favor of St. Isidore could provide the legal green light. The result? A proliferation of religious charters, funded by taxpayers but largely free from public oversight.
- Erosion of Protections for Students with Disabilities
The implications for students with disabilities are especially concerning. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s implementing regulations, a student with disabilities who is “placed in or referred to a private school or facility by a public agency…[h]as all of the rights of a child with a disability who is served by a public agency.” Yet, a ruling in favor of St. Isidore risks undermining these guarantees by creating a loophole for private religious charters to skirt IDEA’s requirements.
This concern is not just theoretical. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the hybrid nature of charter schools already complicates questions of accountability and state action, particularly when it comes to safeguarding student rights. Allowing religious charters to operate free from IDEA’s obligations would further erode the fragile legal protections students with disabilities rely on—protections that are already too often disregarded in practice.
- Undermining Public Health and Safety Policies
The pandemic underscored the challenges of balancing public health mandates with constitutional protections for religious freedom. In 2020, a federal judge in Kentucky struck down the state’s attempt to close religious schools during a Covid-19 spike, even as public and secular private schools complied. Extending public funding to religious charters could further erode the state’s ability to enforce neutral regulations, from health measures to curriculum standards. Such decisions privilege religious institutions over secular ones, creating a patchwork of inconsistent rules that could undermine public safety and equity.
Toward Transparency and Accountability
Can these challenges be mitigated? Some experts argue for stricter regulations to preserve the public nature of charter schools. Bruce Baker, a professor of education finance, suggests limiting charter authorization to government agencies and requiring boards and employees to be public officials. Such reforms could ensure that charters remain accountable to taxpayers and subject to the same constitutional constraints as public schools.
Other scholars, like Preston Green and Suzanne Eckes, propose requiring religious charters to forgo certain exemptions if they wish to receive public funding. Specifically, they recommend restructuring charter school boards as government-created and controlled entities to ensure they are unequivocally recognized as state actors subject to constitutional obligations. For example, this would require religious charters to comply fully with anti-discrimination laws and other public mandates, maintaining the balance between religious freedom and public accountability.
The Larger Threat to Public Education
Even with these potential safeguards, the broader implications are sobering. If the court rules in favor of religious charters, states will face difficult choices: increase taxes to fund an expanding universe of religious and secular schools, divert money away from public schools, or create new bureaucracies to regulate religious institutions. Taxpayers could find themselves funding schools tied to a bewildering array of faiths, from mainstream denominations to fringe sects.
As the justices deliberate, they would do well to consider not just the legal arguments, but also the practical and moral consequences of their decision. What happens to a society when its public institutions are splintered along religious lines? And what happens to the students and families who depend on those institutions for equity, opportunity, and inclusion?
The answers to these questions will shape the future of American education—and the values we choose to uphold.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Christian Nationalism 'On the March': Oklahoma Mandates Bible Teachings in Public Schools
"It's not just happening in Oklahoma; we're seeing it from Texas to West Virginia, from Florida to Idaho," said one church-state separation advocate.
Jun 28, 2024
Advocates for the separation of church and state said Thursday that they plan to take all necessary steps to stop Christian nationalists across the country "from trampling the religious freedom of public school children and their families" after Oklahoma school superintendent Ryan Walters became the latest right-wing leader to mandate Christian teachings in schools.
Walters announced Thursday that "immediate and strict compliance is expected" for a new policy mandating that public schools teach the Christian Bible as part of the state curriculum.
Including the religious text in class materials is necessary "to teach our kids about the history of this country, to have a complete understanding of Western civilization, to have an understanding of the basis of our legal system," said Walters. "We're talking about the Bible, one of the most foundational documents used for the Constitution and the birth of our country."
The announcement came days after Republican Gov. Jeff Landry of Louisiana signed into state law a new policy requiring all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments by 2025.
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) endorsed the policy on Wednesday, saying, "I think there's a number of states trying to look to do the same thing, and I don't think it's offensive in any way." Last weekend, former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump also expressed support for the requirement, saying it could be "the first major step in the revival of religion, which is desperately needed in our country."
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which has launched a legal challenge against the Louisiana law, said Thursday that Walters' policy is "textbook Christian nationalism" and "a transparent, unconstitutional effort to indoctrinate and religiously coerce public school students."
"This nation must recommit to our foundational principle of church-state separation before it's too late. Public education, religious freedom and democracy are all on the line."
"Public schools are not Sunday schools," said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United. "Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters has repeatedly made clear that he is incapable of distinguishing the difference and is unfit for office."
"Walters is abusing the power of his public office to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else's children," continued Laser. "Not on our watch. Americans United is ready to step in and protect all Oklahoma public school children and their families from constitutional violations of their religious freedom."
Laser noted that the organization is already challenging Walters and other Oklahoma officials who are pushing to open the first publicly funded religious charter school, which was blocked by the state Supreme Court this week.
That effort, Walters' announcement, and Louisiana's Ten Commandments law all illustrate that "Christian nationalism is on the march across this country," said Laser.
"It's not just happening in Oklahoma; we're seeing it from Texas to West Virginia, from Florida to Idaho," she said. "Christian nationalists and their lawmaker allies want to replace school counselors with religious chaplains; allow teachers and coaches to pray with students; teach Creationism in science classes; and ban books and censor curricula that feature LGBTQ+ people and racial and religious minorities."
"Americans United will do everything in our power to stop Christian nationalists like Ryan Walters from trampling the religious freedom of public school children and their families," added Laser. "This nation must recommit to our foundational principle of church-state separation before it's too late. Public education, religious freedom and democracy are all on the line."
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) also said it would take "any necessary steps" to stop Walters from imposing the Bible teaching requirement on Oklahoma educators.
"Walters' concern should be the fact that Oklahoma ranks 49th in education," said FFRF Co-President Dan Barker. "Maybe education would improve if Oklahoma's superintendent of education spent his time promoting education, instead of religion."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Donald Trump Endorses Ten Commandments in Schools at Evangelical Event
Trump spoke in support of a controversial new Louisiana law that requires the display of the commandments in all public classrooms, which progressives have said is a prime example of Christian nationalism in action.
Jun 23, 2024
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump on Saturday endorsed the display of the Ten Commandments in schools while speaking at a conference of religious conservatives, raising concerns among progressives of a rising tide of Christian nationalism.
Trump made the comments as keynote speaker at a Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in Washington, D.C., after Louisiana adopted a law this week that requires the display of the Ten Commandments in all public classrooms.
"Has anyone read the 'Thou shalt not steal'?" he said. "They think it's such a bad thing. I mean, has anybody read this incredible stuff? It’s just incredible," Trump said. “They don’t want it to go up. It’s a crazy world."
Trump: Who likes The Ten Commandments going up in schools? Has anybody read the thou shalt not steal? I mean has anybody read this incredible stuff? pic.twitter.com/o7HFNymLfX
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 22, 2024
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, signed the bill into law on Wednesday—the first state to enact such a law in recent memory.
The law requires primary, secondary, and postsecondary classrooms to display the commandments in "large, easily readable font" by the start of 2025. The display must also state that the commandments "were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries"—a debatable contention.
Rights groups immediately condemned the law, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional" and announcing a planned lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court, which could end up with the case, struck down a similar law from Kentucky in 1980, but is now under a conservative super majority.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was recently called a "crusader for Christian nationalism" by a critic following a series of controversies, including a leaked audio tape in which he said that the country needs to return to being "a place of godliness" and that there were fundamental issues on which no compromise with "the left" could be brooked.
Trump's endorsement of the Ten Commandments law comes as he seeks to sure up evangelical support even though he declined to support a national abortion ban—the next step on the anti-choice agenda. During his speech, he did say, in an apparent effort to placate his audience, that there was "a vital role for the federal government in protecting unborn life." He also implored attendees, "Go and vote, Christians, please!"
Trump's speech followed a social media post on Friday in which he'd expressed support for the display of the commandments, not just in public schools but other private schools and "many other places."
"This may be, in fact, the first major step in the revival of religion, which is desperately needed in our country," he wrote on Truth Social, which is owned by Trump Media. "Bring back [the Ten Commandments]!!!"
Neither his position on the national abortion ban nor revelations from his personal life have had a noticeable impact on Trump's popularity with evangelicals.
"Somehow, despite his philandering, lying, business fraud, and numerous other violations of the Ten Commandments, he continues to be thought of as a person of faith by 64 percent of Republicans," The New Republic's Hafiz Rashid wrote.
Louisiana's Ten Commandments law is a prime example of Christian nationalism in action, Sarah Jones wrote in New York.
"Christian nationalists are looking to score points against their foes—and win an ideological war in the process," she wrote. "If America is a Christian nation, nobody else truly belongs. Not atheists, not Muslims, not Jews, not even other Christians who disagree with their interpretation of the Bible. That's a lesson Louisiana Republicans hope to impart to Americans as children."
With Trump's success in the Republican primaries and relatively high polling numbers, progressive thinkers have this year ramped up their warnings about the threat that Christian nationalism poses to democracy.
"A society where one set of religious views is imposed on a large number of citizens who disagree with them is not a democracy," Robert Reich wrote in a Common Dreams op-ed in February. "It's a theocracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups To Sue as Louisiana Requires Ten Commandments Displayed in Classrooms
"Our public schools are not Sunday schools," the groups said, "and students of all faiths, or no faith, should feel welcome in them."
Jun 19, 2024
Rights groups expressed outrage and promised legal action on Wednesday as Louisiana became the only state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms.
The law requires all public classrooms, from kindergarten to university-level, to display the commandments in "large, easily readable font" by the start of 2025. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed House Bill 71 into law Wednesday after declaring recently that he "could not wait to be sued."
Rights groups immediately condemned the law and vowed to challenge it. In a joint statement, the national and state ACLU as well as the Freedom from Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State called the law "blatantly unconstitutional"—a violation of the separation of church and state.
The religious diversity of Louisiana schools must be respected, the groups said.
"Our public schools are not Sunday schools," the statement said, "and students of all faiths, or no faith, should feel welcome in them."
Yes, Louisiana's new law requiring public schools to post the Ten Commandments in every classroom is unconstitutional, and yes, the @ACLU and @ACLUofLouisiana will be suing to stop it. See you in court, Louisiana.https://t.co/GsOLktVOv7
— Heather Lynn Weaver (@HeatherWeaverDC) June 19, 2024
To strengthen the law against legal challenges, Republicans framed the requirement as a way of teaching American history. The law's language declares the Ten Commandments to be one of the "foundational documents of our state and national government"—a claim many critics dispute.
The commandments must be displayed with a "context statement" declaring that they "were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries." The law offers schools the option to also display the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, or the Northwest Ordinance.
Lawmakers in Texas, Oklahoma, and Utah have recently proposed similar bills regarding the display of the commandments, The Associated Press reported.
In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Kentucky, citing the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, which allows for no laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
Landry took office in January, replacing Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards, who had for eight years stymied the agenda of Republican lawmakers. This year, they've brought forth a "flurry of conservative legislation," according to The New York Times.
It is not clear how the U.S. Supreme Court will treat the 1980 precedent. In recent years the court has consistently supported religious rights. In 2022, the six conservative justices ruled that a football coach in Washington who prayed with his players after games was protected by the First Amendment.
The new law—enacted Wednesday amid rising fears of Christian nationalism and its proponents crafting laws across the United States—sparked anger and mockery on social media.
"Apparently Louisiana has enough surplus budget money to defend ridiculous laws?," X user Patti Ringo wrote on the platform.
"The regression of America continues," another X user, David Poland, wrote. "How long will women and people of color be trusted with the vote?"
Even Christian groups have come out against the law. In late May, a group of more than 100 pastors and churchgoers sent Landry an open letter calling for him to veto the bill, arguing that it was not the place of the government to control religious education and that the law "disrespects religious diversity."
The group also criticized the authors of the law, which mandates exact wording of the commandments, for choosing an official version of the Ten Commandments, when different faith traditions have different versions and interpretations.
"To me that is a clear case of the government saying this religion is more important than the others," Rev. Jon Parks, senior co-pastor at University Baptist Church in Baton Rouge and a signer of the open letter, told The Advocate, a Louisiana newspaper. "There are places where the Ten Commandments belong—and the classroom is not it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Keep Church and State Separate to Preserve Reproductive Justice
The principle of the separation of church and state is not just a constitutional provision but a safeguard crucial to preserving the autonomy and well-being of diverse populations.
Dec 29, 2023
In the ongoing battle for reproductive justice, the intersection of religious beliefs and public policy casts a long shadow over the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly those in marginalized communities, including LGBTQ+ and non-binary individuals. That’s why the newly elected Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s remark that “the separation of church and state is a ‘misnomer’” is so chilling.
The principle of the separation of church and state is not just a constitutional provision but a safeguard crucial to preserving the autonomy and well-being of diverse populations, particularly in matters as personal as reproductive health.
Reproductive justice hinges on the right to make informed, personal decisions about one’s body, family, and future. However, the intrusion of religious ideologies into legislation poses a significant threat to this autonomy. The separation of church and state is not a mere abstraction; it is the cornerstone of protecting individual freedoms from the encroachment of religious doctrines that may not align with the diverse beliefs and circumstances of our society.
The separation of church and state provides the necessary framework to safeguard patients from being denied essential medications based on someone else’s religious beliefs.
The Women’s Reproductive Rights Assistance Project (WRRAP), the largest independent abortion fund, works with marginalized communities, including LGBTQ+ and non-binary individuals, who often bear the disproportionate brunt of restrictive reproductive policies driven by religious ideologies. These communities face unique challenges, including limited access to affirming healthcare and discriminatory practices that compound the impact of religiously motivated policies. The separation of church and state becomes a crucial shield against the intersectional barriers faced by individuals at the crossroads of multiple marginalized identities.
The role of all healthcare providers is pivotal in upholding medical ethics and ensuring that patient care is driven by evidence-based practices rather than religious doctrine. Physicians take an oath to prioritize the well-being of their patients, and this commitment should transcend religious biases. When the separation of church and state is compromised, healthcare professionals face the ethical dilemma of navigating between religiously motivated policies and their duty to provide comprehensive, unbiased care.
In societies where religious beliefs infiltrate legislative decisions on reproductive rights, doctors find themselves torn between upholding their commitment to patient well-being and adhering to laws that may compromise patient health. WRRAP and other abortion funds have seen countless cases through the years even prior to the overturning of Roe. The separation of church and state becomes a protective shield for doctors, allowing them the professional autonomy to prioritize evidence-based medical care over religious doctrines.
The impact of religious influence extends beyond doctor-patient interactions to the realm of pharmacies, where pharmacists may encounter moral objections to dispensing certain medications. When religious beliefs seep into legislation, pharmacists may be compelled to prioritize personal convictions over the immediate healthcare needs of patients. This not only infringes on the principle of secular governance but also jeopardizes individuals’ timely access to reproductive healthcare.
WRRAP has heard of many cases in which a patient was denied access to medications like misoprostol, which are used to manage other conditions like autoimmune diseases and gastric ulcers, but, because this drug is also used for medication abortions and treatment for ectopic pregnancies, these prescriptions are denied or delayed by some pharmacists, infringing on and jeopardizing these individual’s healthcare needs.
A pharmacist must dispense medication according to professional and ethical standards, without discrimination. The separation of church and state provides the necessary framework to safeguard patients from being denied essential medications based on someone else’s religious beliefs. Access to contraceptives, emergency contraception, and other reproductive healthcare necessities should be determined by medical necessity, not by the religious tenets of those dispensing them, nor should a patient have to be asked by a provider to take a pregnancy test to confirm they are not pregnant.
As we navigate the landscape of reproductive justice, the separation of church and state stands as a protection against the erosion of individual autonomy. It is an assertion that decisions about reproductive healthcare should be guided by medical ethics, evidence-based practices, and the diverse beliefs of individuals, including those in the LGBTQ+ and non-binary communities, not by the doctrines of any particular faith.
To truly champion reproductive justice, we must fiercely defend the separation of church and state. It is a collective responsibility to ensure that policies respect the autonomy of every individual, irrespective of their background, beliefs, or socio-economic status. In strengthening this separation through advocacy in our communities and through the leaders we elect, we fortify the foundation of a just society—one that upholds the dignity and rights of all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Challenge 'Unconstitutional' Religious Charter School in Oklahoma
"It's hard to think of a clearer violation of the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school families than the state establishing the nation's first religious public charter school," said one group within minutes of a state board approving the school's application.
Jun 06, 2023
Within minutes of a state charter school board in Oklahoma approving a plan on Monday to open what would be the first religious charter school in the United States, advocates for the nation's bedrock laws separating church and state announced plans to file a legal challenge against the proposal.
Allowing the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Diocese of Tulsa to open a taxpayer-funded virtual charter school in which religious education would be a key part of the curriculum would mark "a sea change for American democracy," said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Going against the advice of its own legal counsel and disregarding extensive testimony and legal analysis from Americans United regarding why the creation of the school would violate the U.S. Constitution, the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted 3-2 to allow the religious groups to open St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.
The school would be entirely government-funded, but like other charter schools—which have been criticized by public education advocates—it would be independently managed, in this case by the Catholic archdiocese and diocese.
"It's hard to think of a clearer violation of the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school families than the state establishing the nation's first religious public charter school," said Laser. "No public school family should fear that their child will be required by charter schools to take theology classes or be expelled for failing to conform to religious doctrines. And the government should never force anyone to fund religious education."
"In a country built on the principle of separation of church and state, public schools must never be allowed to become Sunday schools," she added.
The ACLU said it would join Americans United in challenging the plan.
Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt applauded the decision of the board—which is made up of his appointees—but state Attorney General Gentner Drummond, also a Republican, said it was "extremely disappointing that board members violated their oath in order to fund religious schools with our tax dollars."
The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down two rulings in recent years signaling that its right-wing majority could rule in favor of the religious charter school if a case reaches the high court. Last year the court ruled 6-3 that the state of Maine was not permitted to exclude religious schools from a state tuition program, and in 2020 it ruled 5-4 that states must allow private schools to participate in state scholarships.
"Not long ago, this would have been [dead on arrival]" at the Supreme Court, said Los Angeles Times legal affairs columnist Harry Litman. "But they're banking on the Supreme Court to break down the wall between church and state."
The Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition called the board's decision "a loss for American values, the rule of law, and our Oklahoma Constitution."
"Three unelected voices in the state of Oklahoma have put the separation of church and state in peril for the entire nation," said the group. "Oklahoma's public schools are among the lowest funded in the nation. We cannot afford to divert dollars to unconstitutional religious schools. Public education dollars must be protected for accountable public schools that welcome and serve all students."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Texas GOP Accused of 'Coordinated Effort to Force State-Sponsored Religion Into Our Public Schools'
A Republican-passed bill to allow public schools to replace professional counselors with unlicensed chaplains is expected to be signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott.
May 25, 2023
The Republican-controlled Texas Legislature has passed a bill to allow public schools to replace professional counselors with uncertified religious chaplains.
GOP lawmakers in the state House approved Senate Bill 763 on Wednesday, one day after their counterparts in the state Senate passed the legislation. The measure, which permits school districts "to employ or accept as volunteers chaplains to provide support, services, and programs for students," now heads to the desk of far-right Gov. Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it into law.
In addition to undermining religious freedom, the legislation also advances the American Legislative Exchange Council's longstanding goal of weakening occupational licensing requirements, thus threatening both the secular foundations and quality of public education in the Lone Star State. The right-wing Christian lawmakers backing S.B. 763 and related bills have called the separation of church and state a "false doctrine."
Senate Bill 1515, which would have required teachers to display an edited version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom in Texas, was approved by Senate Republicans last month, but the proposal died in the House because the chamber didn't vote on it before midnight Tuesday.
"The purpose of these bills is clear: The same lawmakers trying to control what students think by banning books and censoring curricula now want to dictate what students worship."
S.B. 1515 "was an unconstitutional attack on our core liberties that threatened the freedom of and from religion we hold dear as Texans. It should never have gotten this close to passage," ACLU of Texas attorney David Donatti said in a statement. "Whether trying to place the Ten Commandments in every classroom or replacing school counselors with unlicensed chaplains, certain Texas lawmakers have launched a coordinated effort to force state-sponsored religion into our public schools."
"We cannot overlook their attempts to push legislation that would sanction religious discrimination and bullying," said Donatti. "The First Amendment guarantees families and faith communities—not politicians or the government—the right to instill religious beliefs in their children."
S.B. 763 and S.B. 1515 "came in a session of aggressive legislative measures in Texas and several other states aiming to weaken decades of distinction between religion and government," The Washington Post observed. "Supporters say they believe the [U.S.] Supreme Court's ruling last summer in Kennedy v. Bremerton, in favor of a high school football coach who prayed with players, essentially removed any guardrails between them."
Texas Senate Republicans "also passed a bill to allow districts to require schools to set aside time for staff and students to pray and read religious texts, and a second bill to allow public employees to 'engage in religious prayer and speech'—modeled after the coach ruling," the newspaper reported. "Those two bills failed to make it out of House committees Wednesday and were not considered likely to resurface this session."
Carisa Lopez, senior political director for the progressive Texas Freedom Network, denounced GOP lawmakers for approving S.B. 763.
"This bill violates the religious freedom of all faiths and Texans of non-faith by placing chaplains in our schools who are not required to be certified educators or omit their personal religious beliefs when working with students," Lopez said in a statement. "Chaplains, unlike counselors, are not given the professional training required to care for the mental health of all students, and we cannot be reasonably certain that every chaplain hired or allowed to volunteer would give unbiased and adequate support to an LGBTQIA+ student, someone grappling with reproductive health decisions, or a student who may struggle with suicidal ideation or self-harm."
"I find it egregious—especially on the one-year anniversary of the Robb Elementary shooting in Uvalde—that lawmakers would pass a bill allowing chaplains to be compensated with funding meant to address school safety," said Lopez.
"Yet again, our elected officials have squandered their opportunity to pass meaningful legislation that would keep kids safe, like commonsense gun reform or bills addressing the school counselor and teacher shortage," she added. "We will never stop fighting the religious right's agenda to inject their personal beliefs into our schools, and we urge Texans to hold these lawmakers accountable at the ballot box."
Rev. Erin Walter, a Unitarian Universalist minister in Texas, also condemned the state's GOP lawmakers for pushing theocratic legislation that violates the U.S. Constitution and, in the case of S.B. 763, could harm the well-being of students by leaving them in the care of unqualified chaplains rather than licensed counselors who have completed the requisite training.
"As a religious leader, I'm disgusted by this assault on religious freedom and the right of all religious communities to conduct their own religious education," said Walter. "As a mother, I'm angry that these politicians believe they know how to raise Texas children better than their own parents do."
"As a former public school teacher, I'm appalled by this erosion of public education as a means of preparing young people to thrive in our diverse state," Walter continued. "And as a fourth-generation Texan, I refuse to accept this government intrusion into our private lives."
Earlier this month, Rep. Cole Hefner (R-5), the House sponsor of S.B. 763, insisted during a floor debate that the legislation doesn't seek to promote religion.
"We have to give schools all the tools; with all we're experiencing, with mental health problems, other crises, this is just another tool," said Hefner.
But as The Texas Tribune reported, "opponents fear the bill is a 'Trojan horse' for evangelizing kids and will worsen the state's mental health crisis through disproven counseling approaches."
"Our elected officials have squandered their opportunity to pass meaningful legislation that would keep kids safe, like commonsense gun reform or bills addressing the school counselor and teacher shortage."
Critics of S.B. 763, including some religious groups and Christian Democrats, worry it could allow "religious activists to recruit in schools and would exacerbate tensions at local school boards, which would have the final say on whether to allow chaplains in schools," the Tribune noted. "Worse, opponents say, the bill could deepen the state's youth mental health crisis by providing students with unproven, lightly supervised, and nonscientific counseling that treats common childhood problems, such as anxiety, as 'sins' or issues that can merely be prayed away."
According to the newspaper, "The head of the National School Chaplain Association—a key supporter of the chaplains bill—has led another group for decades that touted its ability to use school chaplains for evangelizing to kids."
During debate on the House floor, "a half-dozen Democratic lawmakers rose to ask Hefner to amend the bill, saying it didn't provide protection for a diversity of religions, among other things," the Post reported. "Hefner and the majority rejected almost all amendments, including one requiring parental consent and another requiring chaplains to serve students of all faiths and not proselytize."
"Groups that watch church-state issues say efforts nationwide to fund and empower religion—and, more specifically, a particular type of Christianity—are more plentiful and forceful than they have been in years," the newspaper noted. "Americans United for Separation of Church and State says it is watching 1,600 bills around the country in states such as Louisiana and Missouri. Earlier this year, Idaho and Kentucky signed into law measures that could allow teachers and public school employees to pray in front of and with students while on duty." However, the group "said it knows of no other bills that replace guidance counselors with chaplains."
In a blog post published earlier this week by the ACLU of Texas, Walter argued that "the purpose of these bills is clear: The same lawmakers trying to control what students think by banning books and censoring curricula now want to dictate what students worship."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Christian Nationalism vs. the Separation of Church and State
The Founding Fathers wisely recognized what religion would become in the hands of charlatans: a theatrical performance and political tool to hypocritically showboat their "piety" as a way to manipulate voters for political gain.
Jan 23, 2023
We have a long tradition in America of Separation of Church and State that prohibits government’s promotion of religion on the one hand, and interference with its free exercise on the other. In their refusal to establish a state church or to favor one religion over another, the Founding Fathers didn’t think that religion was bad but that there was something amiss in human nature, a certain tendency, a will to power and a lust for domination, that always bore watching.
It was a virus that lay dormant until its host came to power, whereupon that person or group became suddenly rabid with a mania that sought to convert, punish or persecute anyone not of their fold or persuasion. Paradoxically, the guise under which this malady manifested itself, as the history of Europe made only too plain, was religion.
The Founders thought that religion, something good in itself, could be used toward either good or bad ends, and, unless preventive measures were taken, could induce in the susceptible a madness so malignant and vicious as to destroy the very essence of religion itself. By persecuting whoever refused to accept their religion or whose lives were deemed insufficiently righteous, those in power could impose a religious tyranny so suffocating in its grip, scope and intensity that one involuntarily thinks of barbed wire and concentration camps.
Various theories have tried to account for this bizarre aberration — the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the ascent of man from beasts, innate human depravity, the Freudian “id,” defective genes, or bad social engineering. But more important than those theories themselves is the lesson to be drawn from those institutions that promise heaven on earth.
Given the weak human vessels in which this religious feeling resides, even this noble sentiment could become tragically twisted and unleash on the world unspeakable horror. Immanuel Kant’s words come to mind when considering such would-be utopians and their spiritual gulags: “Nothing was ever made straight with the crooked timber of humanity.”
In government, the need for transparency, accountability and investigative journalists — assuming they haven’t been censored, banned, imprisoned or shot — is not a casual suggestion, but the sine qua non for maintaining even a pretense of institutional integrity. Human nature is self-contradictory and prone to temptation, especially when the camera’s not running or the press isn’t present. And, no matter the institution, it’s always wise to audit the books — both the official ones and the real ones hidden in the back-office safe.
Politicians, as the saying goes, "Campaign in poetry but govern in prose," so that we had better distrust whatever they’re saying and doing by an ironclad system of checks and balances, fact-checking and vigilant oversight. As soon as they pass a law, they’ll invite a lobbyist to insert a loophole, recalling Juvenal’s admonition, “Who shall guard the guards themselves?”
Even religion can be dragged in the mire by persecuting those of another faith or of no faith at all until, weakened by torture, the unfortunates would end their suffering by conversion or death. So, to prevent these abuses of power as had occurred in Old Europe when Catholics persecuted Protestants, Protestants persecuted Catholics, Protestants persecuted other Protestants, and both Protestants and Catholics persecuted the Jews, the Founders erected a “wall of separation” between Church and State as a safeguard against such outrages.
They wanted to put an end to intolerance, bigotry and sadism that wore the flattering garb of religion and spoke in the sanctimonious accents of self-promotion. They believed that what they were doing was ushering something new into this world, novus ordo seclorum or “a new order of the ages” (see the back of a one-dollar bill).
America was to be a radically new experiment in government which, like ancient Athens itself, would show the world that free men had no need of princes and kings, but could govern themselves. No wonder the royal courts of Europe hoped this fledgling experiment wouldn’t succeed lest the contagion of democracy spread to their people.
The Founders refused to involve government in religion, religious quarrels or animosities that for centuries had convulsed Europe’s political landscape. Under stressful conditions, similar hostilities might also threaten our newfound nation, already a powder keg of sectarian tensions. Lending the power of the state to favor any one denomination or religion over another could exacerbate those mutual suspicions still further that might suggest the beginning of an established State Church.
A wall of neutrality would keep government from pitting one church or religion against another, a policy that had fanned the flames of centuries-old hatreds. Every religion must therefore be allowed to worship in its own way with neither interference nor support from the state. Everyone must be protected from “religious enthusiasm,” as that quaint 18th-century phrase understatedly put it. The only service government could render religion was to stay out of its way as long as one religion didn’t interfere with another.
This was an insight only painfully arrived at after generations of bloodshed, as monarchs imposed their religion on all their subjects (cuius regio, eius religio: whose realm, his religion) to unify and transform their dominions into virtual theocracies to facilitate rule. The Old World was replete with examples of such murderous fury, as competing factions virtuously butchered one another in the conviction that they were “doing God’s will.” Intending to bring their countries together, kings only managed to tear them apart.
The Founders were only too well acquainted with this blood-drenched chronicle, and they resolved to keep such hatreds far removed from our shores. History had taught them that bringing religion into the public arena was to let loose a monster. Still raw in their memory were the anti-Catholic Gordon riots of 1780 that only 11 years earlier had shocked all of Europe as parts of London were left in flames. It was a vivid reminder, if any were needed, of the deadly contagion of “enthusiasm.”
If Gordon had prevailed against the British government, there was no telling whether the outcome would have turned back the clock two centuries when Protestants murdered Catholics only to be followed by Bloody Mary’s retaliation upon her Protestant subjects. It would have been the same sad old tale of religion’s debasement by score-settling, persecution, torture, and death. Religion was nitroglycerin that had to be contained for everyone’s safety.
So, the separation clause was added to the Constitution as the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It was imperative that government stay out of religion, neither encouraging nor impeding its practice. It makes admirable sense since every religion or even non-religion is thereby protected; every faith is of equal value since government plays a neutral role — a neutral role, that is, except when one religion or denomination harasses or persecutes another faith’s members, who refuse to believe as that religion dictates. Government then intervenes to protect the innocent.
This policy of separation is still on the books, and with good reason: Human nature never changes. There are still groups today whose agenda is converting and persecuting, hating and perhaps even murdering those of other faiths, denominations, or of no faith at all to save them from themselves and the fiery furnace to come — unless these “lost souls” submit and “see the light.”
Or, more exactly, “the light” by submitting to them who claim to know the innermost secrets of God himself, as if the Almighty were only the God of their particular denomination or faith alone instead of the God of them all under different names!
What a sorry little God he would be if he weren’t more open-minded than his closed-minded children who insult him by their demeaning image of him and use that caricature as their puppet who “reveals” to them alone what he wants for their country or political party!
Whether such proselytizing zeal is disguised aggression, megalomania, or repressed self-doubt that feels both threatened and driven to convert others to dispel that doubt, these are very dangerous people and should never be part of government or have their theological views of the Second Coming guide an administration’s foreign policy toward Israel and that tinderbox of the Middle East.
And yet, unbeknownst to themselves, these individuals render the nation an inestimable service by being a constant reminder of the very reason for upholding this Separation of Church and State. The Founding Fathers believed that religion was, and must always remain, a private affair because bringing the volatility of “religious enthusiasm” into the public arena would only trivialize religion and destabilize a nation. They feared the political effects of interdenominational feuding, the polarization caused by doctrinal differences, the demonization of dissenters, and the eruption of religious intolerance and hatred.
There was also a second reason why the Founders feared religion in politics — the rise of religious opportunists who would inflame political passions to promote themselves. Religion would become in the hands of these charlatans a theatrical performance and political tool to hypocritically showboat their “piety” to manipulate voters for political gain.
An unscrupulous politician could disguise his lack of convictions by holding his finger to the wind to determine which way the wind was blowing and telling his audience whatever he thought it wanted to hear. This individual well understood the art of inciting “enthusiasm” or hysteria toward some plan of action and call it “the Will of God.”
The Founders would have blanched at politicians returning to their constituents and pandering to their sincerely held religious convictions to gain a following or court popularity — not that they couldn’t take part in religious services as private citizens, but not as representatives of their government lest people think they were lending the prestige of their office to their particular church or religion.
These Founders also knew their Bible, as it played such a pivotal role in their 18th-century world. They knew of Christ’s admonition in Matthew 6 about not playing the hypocrite by standing on the street corner and making a public display of one’s piety, for one would have already received one’s reward. Instead, one should withdraw to one’s room, close the door, and in privacy pray to God as grandstanding didn’t count as prayer with the Lord! As experienced men of the world, they knew only too well how politicians might cynically abuse religion to seek power and votes.
They were also highly educated, even erudite, men, especially Thomas Jefferson, whose library contained a Who’s Who of “great authors,” one of whom was the celebrated French playwright Moliere, author of “Tartuffe,” the embodiment of religious hypocrisy. It is both an uproarious romp into the glacial regions of inner emptiness, as well as a manual for observing the bobbings and weavings of unctuous sanctimony raised to high art.
In that great patrician school of Parisian sophistication, it was thought that the only way to effect moral change was never by sermons but by ridicule. Many don’t mind being considered a scoundrel, but never a fool! Castigat ridendo mores (“Comedy corrects manners”) was the essence of Moliere’s art that skewered human folly by laughter alone.
This caustic mockery of his characters and the gales of laughter that broke forth from the audience were much more effective in pillorying vice than sermons delivered from Notre Dame’s pulpit. Moliere, the French Aristophanes, was and always has been a moral institution for the French, who can laugh at themselves in his characters with no loss of face.
Jefferson and his colleagues well understood that some members of government might be tempted to play Tartuffe on the political stage. One Tartuffe, or a group of them, could do untold harm to a nation by using religion for political ends. To the educated, the 18th century was an age of taste and decorum, moderation and dignity, and everything had its proper place. Religion especially could never be allowed to be vulgarized or cheapened by demagogues toying with people’s religious emotions.
There would be no limit to their unbridled ambition and religious hypocrisy in saying whatever would ingratiate themselves to the favor and trust of an audience. So profound was their cynical abuse of religion for being elected that they would wax rhapsodic on the metaphysical subtleties of Hottentot theology if they thought it would secure them a “leg-up” over their political rivals at election time.
Our Founders felt that religion was something sacred and should always remain so by being kept off-limits to political wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy