Some US lawmakers want more Christianity in the classroom. Trump could embolden their plans
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
apnews.com /article/trump-religion-school-ten-commandments-9159f412c4f47ad421551885093a4a22
Some US lawmakers want more Christianity in the classroom. Trump could embolden their plans
By MORIAH BALINGIT 7-9 minutes 1/11/2025
WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative lawmakers across the U.S. are pushing to introduce more Christianity to public school classrooms , testing the separation of church and state by inserting Bible references into reading lessons and requiring teachers to post the Ten Commandments.
The efforts come as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office pledging to champion the First Amendment right to pray and read the Bible in school, practices that are already allowed as long as they are not government-sponsored.
While the federal government is explicitly barred from directing states on what to teach, Trump can indirectly influence what is taught in public schools and his election may embolden state-level activists.
Trump and his fellow Republicans support school choice , hoping to expand the practice of using taxpayer-funded vouchers to help parents send their children to religious schools .
But there is a parallel push to incorporate more Christianity into the mainstream public schools that serve the overwhelming majority of students, including those of other faiths. And with the help of judicial appointees from Trump’s first presidential term, courts have begun to bless the notion of more religion in the public sphere, including in schools .
“The effect of even Trump being the president-elect, let alone the president again, is Christian nationalists are emboldened like never before,” said Rachel Laser, the president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Large numbers of Americans believe the founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation. A smaller group, part of a movement widely called Christian nationalism , champions a fusion of American and Christian identity and believes the U.S. has a mandate to build an explicitly Christian society.
Many historians argue the opposite, claiming the framers created the United States as an alternative to European monarchies with official state churches and oppression of religious minorities.
Efforts to introduce more Christianity into classrooms have taken hold in several states.
In Louisiana, Republicans passed a law requiring every public school classroom to post the Ten Commandments, which begin with “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Families have sued.
In Texas, officials in November approved a curriculum intertwining language arts with biblical lessons . And in Oklahoma, the state superintendent of education has called for lessons to incorporate the Bible from grades 5 through 12, a requirement schools have declined to follow .
Utah state lawmakers designated the Ten Commandments as a historic document, in the same category as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, so teachers could post it in their classrooms. Many other states have seen legislation that would put them in more classrooms. And attorneys general from 17 GOP-led states recently filed a brief supporting Louisiana’s Ten Commandments mandate.
Schools are permitted — and even encouraged — to teach about religion and to expose students to religious texts. But some say the new measures are indoctrinating students, not educating them.
Critics have raised concerns also about proliferating lesson plans. Some states have allowed teachers to use videos from Prager U, a nonprofit founded by a conservative talk show host, despite criticism that the videos positively highlight the spread of Christianity and include Christian nationalist talking points.
During his first administration, Trump commissioned the 1776 Project , a report that attempted to promote a more patriotic version of American history. It was panned by historians and scholars who said it credited Christianity for many of the positive turns in U.S. history without mentioning the religion’s role in perpetuating slavery, for example.
The project was developed into a curriculum by the conservative Hillsdale College in Michigan and is now taught in a network of publicly funded charter schools supported by the college. It also has influenced state standards in South Dakota .
Challenges to some state measures are now working their way through the courts , which have grown friendlier to religious interests thanks to Trump’s judicial appointments.
In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a football coach in Washington state who was fired for praying with players at midfield after a game, saying the school district infringed on his rights to religious expression. Dissenting justices noted some players felt pressure to join the coach. But the high court said a public school can’t restrict an employee’s religious activity just because it could be construed as an endorsement of religion, reversing a five-decade precedent.
The ruling could pave the way for conservatives to introduce more Christianity in public schools, said Derek Black, a law professor at the University of South Carolina.
“Donald Trump’s judicial appointees have emboldened states” to test the separation of church and state, he said.
In the wake of the football coach’s case, courts now analyze church-state separation through the lens of history, said Joseph Davis of Becket, a public interest law firm focused on religious freedom that is defending Louisiana over its Ten Commandments mandate.
The Supreme Court has endorsed the idea that “it’s OK to have religious expression in the public spaces,” Davis said, “and that we should sort of expect that ... if it’s a big part of our history.”
Critics say some measures to introduce more historical references to Christianity in classrooms have taken things too far, inserting biblical references gratuitously, while erasing the role Christianity played in justifying atrocities perpetuated by Americans, like genocide of Native people.
These are among the criticisms facing the new reading curriculum in Texas. Created by the state, districts aren’t required to use it, but they receive financial incentives for adopting it.
“The authors appear to go out of their way to work detailed Bible lessons into the curriculum even when they are both unnecessary and unwarranted,” religious studies scholar David R. Brockman wrote in a report on the material . “Though religious freedom is vital to American democracy, the curriculum distorts its role in the nation’s founding while underplaying the importance of other fundamental liberties cherished by Americans.”
Texas Values, a conservative think tank that backed the new reading curriculum, said in a statement that the court’s pivot toward permitting more Christianity in schools, and allowing more taxpayer money to flow to religious institutions, is corrective.
The football coach case has rightfully returned protections for religion and free speech in public school, said Jonathan Saenz, the Texas Values president.
“Voters and lawmakers (are) getting tired of the attacks on God and our heritage of being ‘One Nation Under God,’” he said.
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
If the world had only one religion inserting religion into schools would be much more defensible in my opinion. Teaching the Bible in school just marginalizes kids that are not Christian.
Plus there is the whole separation of church and state thing.
If Jesus can be expressed in schoolhouses in this country as religious expression: Then, I propose/demand that all versions of Christianity (denominational versions), Islam, Judaism, Church of Satan, and so forth and so on be given EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW in the classroom!
Nothing short of that should suffice. Tie their Nationalists butts up in court over it. If they won't STOP demanding! Then We won't STOP demanding either!
Any religion pushed in public schools is completely indefensible.
Any atheism pushed by public schools is completely indefensible.
Is building strawmen your new day job?
Unless you support any Muslim, Buddhist or Pastafarian public school teachers indoctrinating school kids with their own personal religious beliefs you should also oppose Christian teachers doing so, too.
Your understanding of strawman needs work.
Public schools job is not to indoctrinate but rather to educate. In that regard they shouldn’t be pushing any religion but also shouldn’t stop students from freely exercising their beliefs.
No one should force another to practice or not practice their chosen religion within reason.
Unless you have actual evidence that "atheism pushed by public schools" is a problem, you are indeed building a strawman argument.
When the Church of Satan shows up in school board meetings and court we will discover what that qualifier "within reason" really means.
Yes, it would be. Have you seen that somewhere?
There is no evidence or argument to be made from silence on religious indoctrination because that is what it is. BTW, indoctrination called by any other name - is still indoctrination. . . . it's "empty" counter-narration.
Case in point: Rightwingers call/mock Muslim madrasases as centers of indoctrination into violence, but suggest they can 'do' religious teaching for peace - instead we see the same hate and demonization of "the Other" in organized religion.
Time to take the lipstick off the 'pig' of religion and let us see it 'naked' and 'raw' - see if it can stand up to full-length exposure against other religions and atheism.
What works of widespread cultural significance has the church of Satan produced worth studying? Which civilizations are based upon its principles?
A better focus would be:
What qualifies the Bible, Judaism and Christianity to be alone on the dais of school programs when there are other mainline religions (and distinct inter-denominational distinctions and differences STILL not ascertained or critically 'secured' within). Since the question is being asked: Maybe it is time to demonstrate in a court of law why FAITH is fit to have its own platform in the classroom.
Of course the only true answer is this: Freedom of religion is allowed under the constitution . . . well, the Church of Satan, is a religion and it should be allowed freedom to "proliferate" in as many places as other standing religions!
Note: As a Christian believer in Jesus as Christ. But, I will not stand with meddlesome people who simply are self-interested in promoting their belief and self-indulgent in never-ending pushing their beliefs on those who do not volitionally wish to have them!
Read the question I asked and apply it to this situation.
I read the question and my reply is the constitutional freedom on religion does not involve itself in cultural or civilization norms of any kind. It simply states freedom of religion expression. Thus, The Church of Satan can demand a place in the classroom just as much as any other religious groups or sue on religious discrimination grounds. Indeed, one person with a religious point of view (a Church of One) can request time and space in schools to spread a 'message' of hope, or fear, to students.
Time for the scaffolding and sheltering of "high-sounding" SELECTIVE morality to come down (with a resounding noise if need be)! It can not be that one or two religions get to 'limelight' for future centuries in the hearts of Americans while other religions deemed "lesser" lay in the shadows watching the 'soaking' going on as they lie anemic and atrophying.
Good thing schools are not doing that.
Bogus argument.
The founders were clear on their reasons for this. They wanted no state sponsored religion (establishment clause) like England has back in the 1700’s but also wanted freedom to exercise religion, free exercise clause.
Both key components of the first amendment.
Separation of church and state also means government institutions such as public schools cannot endorse or promote religion. Private Schools are not bound by that. No one's free exercise is affected.
They also can not exclude it as noted above. Free Exercise Clause.
Individual students are free to practice their religion as long as the school doesn't promote or endorse it and the activity is on the student's time.
Just take your kids to church. Read the Bible at home. Why force it on other people? Is the Faith so unappealing that it must be compulsory?
I watch a family member (looking over her shoulders) taking in TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) and what comes over the airways is 'brutal' and even suspect of violating the clause for non-profits to stay out of politics. I am a Christian believer, but I can tell you "these people" on TBN are 'hardcore' - some would label: "Jesus freaks." They talk about 'taking back the culture for Jesus' (Jesus never asked them to do any such thing _Jesus wanted peace with all mankind. Letting one or another decide their 'end.') But these people are actively pursuing cultural change back or 'stalling' the present out so that the 'past' can catch up! Jesus freaks! And, they have captivated the elderly and the aged—whom they fleece with creating trust to TBN and buying up book after book by Christian writers after writers!
Because that's what fascists do.
No, that is what atheists do. I could care less if they worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They on the other hand scoff at organized religion which in the end, is meaningless to me as well.
Absolutely meaningless.
Then, standby for the arrival of satanic teachings in schoolhouses once the dust settles on the dispute (fair is fair; right is right)!
Yes, I believe you could care less. That really is not saying anything, is it?
And it is funny that you seem to think that atheists worship something.
Nah but it is funny that many atheist I know aren’t aware that they do worship something. Themselves.
Know what I mean?
No. Please continue to explain to us atheists what we think? I need a good laugh.
So? Scoffing seems very different from actively pushing your beliefs on a captive audience. People are allowed to disagree with you out loud. As near as I can tell, atheism isn’t being “preached” per se in public schools. And I don’t think I’ve heard of a school or district that was proposing it.
No, I do not. Please explain. I'm an atheist and I certainly do not worship myself. Although I won't stop anyone else from their religious freedom to express worship for me 😉
Parochial schools actively pushing their beliefs on students. Public schools? Not so much.
Such self awareness is rarely present in folks like that. Any thinking person here, that has casually observed certain members contributions, can see it.
Easily.
People with self awareness don't tell those who do what they think. Of course the irony makes me chuckle when they try.
lol …. More empirical evidence.
Thanks!
You still didn't explain how atheists worship themselves.
It is rather ironic, isn't it? I very much doubt that the majority of people on this forum are as Christ-like as they proclaim to be
I'm still trying to figure out the logic of worshipping oneself while not having self awareness works.
This is not debatable. Some here will try but it changes nothing.
Many atheists worship themselves because they place themselves as the highest good to be attained and preserved. There is nothing “morally” above them. They are always right, never wrong. Subconsciously and/or consciously perfect in their own minds.
[deleted][✘]
I doubt that there is a better example of self worship on this site than yourself. Your god could tell you how wrong you are and you’d interrupt it to tell it why it is wrong.
Opinions do vary, greatly in this case.
[✘]
Atheism is a reaction to overt theism. If theists would stop insisting religion needs to be a part of public life then you’d never hear anything anti-religious from an atheist - unless you asked them directly for an opinion. You know this.
Bullshit.
A good number of Atheists are more than happy to spew their brand to whoever will listen and bag on people of faith. This place is great proof of that. You see a lot of Christians, Muslims, etc pushing their faith here?[✘]
[✘]
Of course it's debatable. All you're doing is making a sweeping generalization, which I suspect is influenced by a personal bias against atheists.
More like atheists respond to or challenge theistic claims and arguments.
Thats just it, there is no logic.
Indeed. One can always tell too, as their comments become uncivilized and veer off into taunting, trolling, meta, or just have no value, which is what we're noticing here in this discussion.
Well, would you look at that. Taken ten minutes ago by yours truly in Kona. No snark, no disrespect, just genuine respect for people’s rights to worship how and when they choose. We even left a donation.
That's a pretty church
That is PRECISELY what I try to get across to my fellow Southern Baptist (SB) in particular. God wants people. . .whom 'want' God. Accordingly, this is scripturally why God allows time to spin on and on so that as many as WISH to come can come willingly—not through compulsion.
I, myself, was raised until teen years in the Church. Then, I wandered away for many, many, years. . . and returned to the (Christian) Faith. Nobody had to 'herd' me or threaten me or box me in to do so. Simply, it was TIME for me to do so in my own understanding.
This is why I am tangibly ANGRY with the Church that mocks, stifles, uses and abuses, and oppresses whole groups of people whom are not interested in 'turning to' God volitionally—so they (SB) harass them for their choices outside the realm of the/their institutional churches and beliefs.
I am ANGRY with such hypocritical Christians whom can not be told or made to just quit their meddling 'all day long.'
giggle
[✘]
----
[deleted][✘]
[✘]
[✘]
It's wholesome for transsexuals to read about themselves though the lenses of other transsexuals. What's the problem? According to black and white politics. . . there is no gray to consider. So, one has to ASK how in the hell can a born heterosexual EVER turn or have a transsexual issue. . . seeing that the 'prevailing' wisdom from such opinion-ators is such and occurrence is impossible since it is not in the genes?
Right-wingers should judge what they know and understand namely - other right-wingers. Or, expect transsexuals to start judging heterosexuals dirty laundry for liquid and debris stains too.
Yawn ……
Which health is most essential? (Choose One.)
1. Mental health.
2. Spiritual health.
3. Social health.
4. Sexual health.
None of the above. Without having your physical health the rest of those mean nothing.
[deleted][✘]
Not sure how "physical health' is most essential when you stated: None of the above.
Maybe another go at it to straighten out the wrinkle.
Please: rank the health statuses in the order of a conservative worldview:
1. Sexual health.
2. Physical health.
3. Social health.
4. Mental health.
lol …. Now you remove Spiritual Health?
Hilarious
Good catch. I was distracted by an off-line discussion taking place with me involved.
And yes, a new additional health has been added to the list. Please share your ranking of the list!
And yes, transsexuals are/should be/must be able to have sexual health, wellness, and soundness in an ALLEGEDLY open and free society such as ours claim to be! Heterosexual has proven merit and value for society. Transsexual lives have merit and value for our society—equal in its own right!
All of those are important. I don't believe you can put one ahead of any other because if you don't have one you don't have the other 3
Yours is a holistic approach to wellness of the individual. Thank you for sharing.
Is that what that is. I've always heard the term but never really understood it
In this context it means caring for (and treating) the whole (person).
Wholistically