The Phoenix Declaration smuggles a theocratic worldview through pleasant, familiar vocabulary—turning words like “truth,” “freedom,” and “the good life” into vehicles for a single religious ideology. Once you decode that language, the stakes clarify fast: a public education system where scientific method is replaced with biblical literalism, where civic history is rewritten through a sectarian lens, and where moral autonomy is redefined as submission to someone else’s theology. The danger isn’t just Florida’s adoption of the document—it’s how easy it would be for unsuspecting school boards in other states to nod along…
The Declaration is firmly rooted in Heritage’s Project 2025, which probably tells us all we need to know. Both documents are products of Christian nationalism. Both explicitly frame education as a process of eliciting a student’s “God-given potential,” and inculcating (their version of) virtue, moral formation, and the “Judeo-Christian tradition.” The Declaration says its educational mission is “helping children achieve their full, God-given potential,” by educating them in “truth and goodness,” civic virtue, character formation, and a love of country– echoing the Christian-nationalist belief that America is a “Christian nation,” and that public life should reflect that Christian “heritage.”
The Declaration appears to be part of Project 2025’s effort to institutionalize its worldview through a takeover of public education. That certainly is the view of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which has noted that several of the declaration’s principles echo those of Project 2025–for example, proposals to expand school vouchers, promote religious instruction with public funds, and curtail diversity and civil rights efforts.
The declaration includes several statements that appear benign on their face but reveal a deeper ideological agenda when read in context.
On “objective truth” and morality, the document states: “Students should learn that there is objective truth and that it is knowable. Science courses must be grounded in reality, not ideological fads. Students should learn that good and evil exist, and that human beings have the capacity and duty to choose good.”
Language like this has been routinely used by Christian nationalist groups to cast evidence-based teaching about gender, sexuality and modern science as “ideological fads,” while elevating religious beliefs about morality as neutral “truth.”
On cultural transmission, the declaration asserts: “True progress comes only by building on what has been learned and achieved in the past. Students should therefore learn about America’s founding principles and roots in the broader Western and Judeo-Christian traditions.”
This explicitly frames public education through a sectarian lens. The United States is not founded on “Judeo-Christian traditions” as a governing principle, and public schools cannot privilege one religious heritage over the nation’s actual pluralistic history.
FFRF points out that several members of the Declaration’s drafting committee and signatories are representatives of organizations openly committed to religious education, Christian nationalism or the dismantling of secular public institutions. (Moms for Liberty is a signatory. Need I say more?)
“This political campaign disguised as a declaration seeks to hand over control of our classrooms to political operatives and shift blame, pointing fingers rather than offering real solutions,” FEA stated. “Instead of chasing ideological agendas, the State Board of Education members should focus on what truly helps students: Making sure public schools are fully funded, addressing the critical teacher and staff shortage, and guaranteeing that every child has access to a strong, neighborhood public school.”
FEA was not the only organization to see past the Declaration’s ambiguous language. Julie Kent, the president of Florida National Organization for Women, pointed out that the Declaration’s standards “impose an ideology under the guise of neutrality, marginalize diverse perspectives, undermine public education and politicize curriculum reviews.”
The Declaration’s standards reveal the accuracy of the criticisms. That standard on “Truth and Goodness,” declares students must learn that there is “objective truth” –truth which the Declaration finds rooted in a particular version of Christianity.
I guess it’s not enough to send tax dollars to religious schools via vouchers. The Right wants to Christianize our public schools too.
A while back, the Indianapolis Capital Chronicle published an article reminding readers of the importance of the nation’s public schools. The article began with an acknowledgement of the war being waged on those public schools by the Trump Administration and the Christian Nationalists responsible for Project 2025, and it followed that acknowledgement by underscoring what the nation stands to lose if that war succeeds. The authors reminded readers that the nation’s public schools have been responsible for creating an educated workforce–and far more importantly, for inculcating generations of students with the United States’ fundamental values of liberty, equality, fairness and concern for the common good.
As the great political scientist Benjamin Barber wrote, the public schools have been constitutive of a public–they have forged a community of Americans from the diverse families who sent their children into those public school classrooms.
Education is a public good; it doesn’t simply benefit individual students, it benefits the country. The authors quote Horace Mann–often dubbed the father of our public school system–for the assertion that universal, publicly funded, nonsectarian public schools would help sustain American political institutions, expand the economy and fend off social disorder. Mann’s words really resonate right now, as the years of persistent war on public schools and the diversion of tax dollars to primarily religious schools has contributed greatly to the current polarization and tribalization of the American public, and contributed to our growing social disorder.
The authors of the article noted that they’d written a book titled “How Government Built America,” and they shared two lessons they took from their research for that book.
One is that the U.S. investment in public education over the past 150 years has created a well-educated workforce that has fueled innovation and unparalleled prosperity.
As our book documents, for example, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries the states expanded public education to include high school to meet the increasing demand for a more educated citizenry as a result of the Industrial Revolution. And the GI Bill made it possible for returning veterans to earn college degrees or train for vocations, support young families and buy homes, farms or businesses, and it encouraged them to become more engaged citizens, making “U.S. democracy more vibrant in the middle of the twentieth century.”
The other, equally significant lesson is that the democratic and republican principles that propelled Mann’s vision of the common school have colored many Americans’ assumptions about public schooling ever since. Mann’s goal was a “virtuous republican citizenry” – that is, a citizenry educated in “good citizenship, democratic participation and societal well-being.”
Mann believed there was nothing more important than “the proper training of the rising generation,” calling it the country’s “highest earthly duty.”
The people currently in positions of authority have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest whatsoever in that “rising generation,” neither its training nor its very survival. From the replacement of medical science with quackery likely to cost children’s lives to denial of the climate change that threatens the livability of the planet, the grifters and con men currently in power are interested only in what they can extract during their time in office. They are perfectly happy to advance Christian Nationalists goals, including the destruction of “government” schools and their replacement with “godly academies” that deepen America’s social divisions.
Trump’s dismantling of the Department of Education has been accompanied by pious statements about returning control to the states, but in direct contradiction to that rhetoric, the administration has also been busy mandating what can and cannot be taught in public schools. It continues to threaten funding for school districts that fail to penalize transgender children or that teach about slavery and contemporary forms of discrimination. The White House is demanding a curriculum highlighting “patriotic” education–a curriculum that ignores the less admirable parts of our history and instead depicts the founding of the U.S. as “unifying, inspiring and ennobling.”
A shining City on a hill…
Trump and MAGA fear true education. Instead, they want to indoctrinate–and the material they want to impart is (to put in mildly) inconsistent with reality.
The weakening and eventual destruction of America’s public schools is an essential part of the Christian Nationalist/MAGA/Project 2025 plan to privilege (certain) White Christians and turn others into second-class citizens.
The assault on our universities has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, and the assaults on our public schools have nothing to do with the quality of education.
Yesterday, I was honored to keynote NOW’s state convention. Here’s the message I delivered. (And yes, it’s another long post. Sorry…)
__________
These really are the times that try women’s souls.
I don’t need to tell this audience how long and hard women have fought to be treated like human beings entitled to the Equal Protection of the Laws. And I don’t need to explain to anyone here why this is an incredibly dangerous, pivotal moment—not just for women’s rights, but for the entire American experiment.
As I wrote in a recent book, we are living in a time when the defenders of patriarchy are arguing for a return to traditional family roles; a time when the US Supreme Court is dominated by rogue justices who are overprotective of claims that women’s rights are inconsistent with religious freedom and who are dramatically under-protective of women’s basic civil liberties. We live in a time when a once-respectable political party has morphed into a profoundly racist, misogynist Christian Nationalist cult with retrograde beliefs about “women’s place.”
All of these efforts are part and parcel of a hysterical resistance to the social changes that have accompanied modern life– resistance to America’s growing diversity and especially to the progress of women and minority groups—a resistance led by men (largely but not exclusively White men) who resent the loss of the automatic social and legal dominance they once enjoyed simply by virtue of their skin color and gender.
So—how did we get here? Specifically, how have women gotten here? How have we advanced, and how threatening is the current, massive opposition to our hard-won status as almost-equals?
Let me begin by suggesting that there’s a very good reason that those waging a war on women have focused so single-mindedly on reversing our reproductive rights. It is impossible to overstate the effect that reliable birth control—control of reproduction—has had on women’s fight for equality.
The original longtime subservience of the female gender was the result of two major biological facts: first, women, on average, have less brute strength than men on average; and second, we get pregnant. During the many decades that workforce participation largely required brute strength, men were advantaged. And when any sexual encounter could result in pregnancy, women were disadvantaged; as a result, for generations, the female of the species was largely confined to childbearing and child-rearing.
Both of those things have changed.
Over the years, as technology has advanced, fewer and fewer jobs have required physical strength—instead, today’s work world overwhelmingly requires education, intellect and a variety of specialized skills, qualifications that are distributed far more equally between the sexes. I don’t want to minimize the importance of that changing work environment–as a result of those changes in the economy, women have been able to enter the workforce in ever greater numbers.
But by far the most important advance—the development that has allowed millions of women to navigate the economic waters—was the birth control pill and other associated innovations that gave us the tools to control our own reproduction. Before the advent of reliable birth control, every sexual encounter carried the risk of pregnancy, and pregnancy generally meant the end of women’s economic independence.
A pregnant woman was almost always unemployable, and so was a married woman in her childbearing years, since there was always the threat of pregnancy—and childcare was seen (and let’s be honest, is still largely seen) as a uniquely female responsibility. As a result, most married women were entirely economically dependent upon their husbands. If the marriage was unhappy—or worse, violent—a woman with children was literally enslaved. Since she was unable to enter the workforce to support herself or her children, unless she had independent means, she was totally dependent upon her husband, no matter how abusive or otherwise inadequate that husband might be.
Once women had access to reliable birth control, the whole world changed. If women could choose when to procreate, we could also choose when NOT to procreate. We could schedule our reproduction around educational and career opportunities. And even beyond the economic tsunami caused by the availability of birth control, the widespread use of contraception coupled with Supreme Court decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade accompanied significant changes in social attitudes that led to legal changes advancing women’s ability to participate not just in the economy, but also in America’s political and civic life.
Those changes that benefitted women, however, ran headlong into fundamentalist religion and Christian Nationalism. And if you think these fanatics simply oppose abortion—that their opposition to birth control has moderated—be disabused. Let me share just two examples of the zealotry with which the Right is attacking not just abortion but contraception. A bill recently introduced in South Carolina would criminalize hormonal contraception, defining birth control as abortion. The “logic” of the bill comes straight from fetal personhood dogma, which is a theological rather than a scientific concept, and it isn’t limited to South Carolina. There are plenty of other Red state legislators—including here in Indiana—who support legislating that theology into state law. And just last week, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration had destroyed ten million dollars’ worth of birth control pills and other contraceptives that had been destined for people in low-income countries. The administration also announced that the U.S. would no longer fund the purchase of birth control products for low-income countries. What is even more egregious, the government was determined to destroy these contraceptives despite the fact that several international organizations, including the Gates Foundation, had offered to buy them, which would have allowed the government to recoup taxpayer funds. Instead, the administration was willing to spend $167,000 to destroy them and make sure no one used them. Interestingly, after the media reported the destruction, officials in Belgium reported that they were holding them in a warehouse and trying to facilitate their sale so that they could eventually be used in low-income countries. So far, it’s a standoff with the Trump administration continuing to insist that they be destroyed.
They’re coming after contraception, and they haven’t reduced their focus on abortion. Despite the deeply dishonest rhetoric of Justice Alito in Boggs, that opposition is historically relatively recent; state laws forbidding abortion were scarce until the late 1800s. After their passage, however, women could only end unwanted pregnancies in overwhelmingly dangerous and unsafe ways. As officials at Planned Parenthood like to remind us, Roe wasn’t the beginning of abortion; it was the beginning of medically safe abortions.
Together with ready access to birth control, the ability to obtain safe, medically appropriate abortions empowered women to control their own lives to an extent that had previously been unthinkable—and I would suggest to you that it is women’s increased ability to exercise personal autonomy that really powers the forced birth movement.
Even though public opinion is strongly opposed to the ruling in Dobbs, what is not widely recognized is that the forced birth movement that finally toppled Roe did not grow out of genuine religious sentiment, as most people assume, but out of resistance to racial integration.
As noted religion scholar Randall Balmer has reported, America’s anti-abortion movement began in 1979—a full six years after Roe v, Wade was decided. Evangelical leaders, goaded by Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion as a rallying-cry in what was actually a segregationist effort to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term—an effort that was in reaction to the passage of civil rights laws during the Carter administration. Objecting to abortion—talking piously about “baby killing”– was seen as “more palatable” than what was really motivating the Religious Right at the time, which was protection of the segregated schools they had established following the decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
Both before and for several years after the decision in Roe, evangelical Christians had been overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject of abortion, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.
As Ballmer and other historians have reported, what really prompted Evangelical participation in politics was anger at tax and civil rights laws aimed at their segregation academies. Falwell and Weyrich decided to tap into the ire of the racist evangelical leaders who had established those schools, but they were savvy enough to recognize that organizing grassroots evangelicals to defend racial discrimination would probably be a non-starter. The anti-integration message worked for evangelical leadership, but they needed a different issue to mobilize evangelical voters on a large scale. Abortion fit the bill.
In short, historians agree that the catalyst for the Christian Right’s political activism was not, as often claimed, Roe v. Wade and opposition to abortion. The real roots of Christian Nationalism are found in the movement’s racism—and in the furious resistance of White males to the social changes that had allowed women, gay citizens and people of color to exercise increased autonomy and to compete with straight White men on an increasingly level playing field.
As Morton Marcus and I wrote in our recent book on the women’s movement, the Dobbs decision was nothing less than a frontal assault on human liberty. The decision is generally—and accurately—seen as an attack on women’s right to self-determination, but we need to recognize that it was much, much more than that. It was the expression of the growing, profoundly anti-liberty worldview that permeates Project 2025 and poses an existential danger to America’s constitutional values.
What Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade had recognized was the importance of a constitutional doctrine called substantive due process. Dobbs was a frontal attack on that doctrine, which we often call the “right to privacy.” Substantive Due Process, or the right to privacy, confirms the American principle that certain “intimate” individual decisions—including one’s choice of sexual partners or the decision to use contraception– are none of government’s business.
Most constitutional scholars agree that the individual’s right to personal autonomy has always been inherent in the Bill of Rights, but it was explicitly recognized in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut. Connecticut’s legislature had passed a law prohibiting the use of birth control by married couples. The law prohibited doctors from prescribing contraceptives and pharmacists from filling such prescriptions. The Supreme Court struck down the law, holding that whether a couple used contraceptives was not a decision government is entitled to make. (Fortunately, Samuel Alito wasn’t then on the Court..)
The court’s majority recognized that a right to personal autonomy—the right to self-government—is absolutely essential to the enforcement of other provisions of the Bill of Rights. Justices White and Harlan found explicit confirmation of it in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—which is where the terminology “substantive due process” comes from. Wherever it resided–in a “penumbra” or the 14th Amendment—a majority of Justices agreed on both its presence and importance.
The doctrine of Substantive Due Process draws a line between decisions that government has the legitimate authority to make, and decisions which, in our system, must be left up to the individual. I used to tell my students that the Bill of Rights is essentially a list of things that government is forbidden to decide. What books you read, what opinions you form, what prayers you say (or don’t)—such matters are far outside the legitimate role of government. The issue isn’t whether that book is dangerous or inappropriate, or that religion is false, or whether you should marry someone of the same sex, or whether you should procreate: in America, the issue is who gets to make that decision. And in America, it is the individual, not the state.
Enabling autocracy–destroying our current system of a democratic majority restrained by the Bill of Rights—rather obviously requires eliminating substantive due process. The decision in Dobbs thus opened a pathway to an enormous expansion of government power, and that expansion threatens everyone—especially women, but also gay folks and racial and religious minorities.
So much for where we are. The obvious question—the important question—the question with which we are all struggling—is what can we do? What can an individual do in the face of this retrograde MAGA attack on the most foundational principles of the nation?
We can certainly participate in the growing number of protests being organized by groups like Indivisible and others. (The next “No Kings Day is October 18th. I hope to see you all there.) Don’t dismiss the efficacy of these events; there is scholarship showing that non-violent protests by a sufficient percentage of the population have succeeded in overcoming autocracies elsewhere. That research pegs a “sufficient percentage” at 3.5% of the population. In the U.S., that comes to just over 11 million people. Estimates of the turnout for the first “No Kings Day”—the first big protest– ranged from five to six million participants.
We can also come together with like-minded citizens who understand what is at stake. For example, it is encouraging to note that genuine Christians are finally challenging the White Christian Nationalists. Christians Against Christian Nationalism was formed in 2019, and in a very welcome response to ICE and its efforts to rid the country of Black and Brown people by categorizing them as “illegal immigrants,” a network of 5000 churches—many of them Evangelical– has organized to protect immigrant worshippers and frustrate ICE.
There is also the emerging Resolutions Project, patterned after a mechanism that helped build support for the American Revolution. In the runup to that conflict, those favoring Revolution in towns across the colonies introduced, debated and passed so-called “resolutions of condemnation” that focused on the gravity of the “injuries,” “abuses” and “usurpations” of Mad King George III. Those resolutions helped build support for the Revolution by creating local ownership of their big arguments in the fight for independence. As we speak, there are at least 75 resolutionsthat have either passed or are moving in 23 states + the District of Columbia.It’s an effort that NOW and other pro-democracy Indiana organizations should join!
Longer term, we desperately need to restore civic education and accurate history instruction, and we need to confront the collapse of responsible journalism and the exponential growth of internet propaganda and conspiracy theories. (Don’t ask me how we do that…)
Of course, unless we can stop Trump’s march to dictatorship, we may not have a “long term.” So that brings me to our best chance of derailing the not-so-slow-moving coup we are all watching in real time. That opportunity will come with next year’s midterm elections.
As you all know, more Americans failed to vote in 2024 than voted for either candidate. Getting the rational citizens among those non-voters to the polls next year has to be job number one. In Red states like ours, that means Democrats running a candidate in every district so that disaffected Republicans and apathetic Democrats have someone to vote for. It means a massive effort to increase registration and get out the vote of people who—for whatever reason (but especially the gerrymandering that’s convinced them there’s no point) haven’t been casting ballots; and it means developing messaging that will resonate with them, messaging that will give them both a reason to vote and a reason to believe that their vote will make a difference. And in most parts of the state, it really will make a difference! Let me explain why.
Indiana has long been gerrymandered, but over the years, our rural areas have been steadily emptying out, meaning that the margins enjoyed by Republicans in those “safe” districts have been thinning. That’s one reason. But there’s another. Gerrymandering’s biggest effect is voter suppression. Belief that their district is safe for the GOP, non-voters who might vote for Democrats or Independents have been convinced that there’s no point, so why bother. (When the Democrats fail to run a candidate, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.) In reality, if turnout improved significantly, many of those districts wouldn’t be safe. It isn’t only the demographic shifts; in many districts, there are substantial numbers of Democrats and Independents who have previously failed to turn out. Gerrymandering requires the line drawers to begin with data from prior elections. The failure of discouraged Democrats and Independents to vote has skewed that data by artificially inflating the Republican advantage. We need to take that message to discouraged Indiana voters.
Just let me conclude with the bottom line:
If there has ever been a time for political activism, this is it. If there has ever been a time for all people who oppose the cult that has replaced the Republican party to come together, to abandon our policy differences and work in concert to save the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it’s now.
I know the people in this room will do that work. We just need to encourage the citizens who have been apathetic to join us—and thanks to the daily, unconstitutional, anti-democratic and absolutely horrific behaviors of the Trump administration, a lot of those citizens are no longer apathetic. We can do this.
Yesterday, I spoke at a gathering in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, sponsored by multiple civic organizations convened by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Other speakers addressed the growing threat of this unAmerican movement and the multiple ways it is not Christian. I addressed the threat it poses to America’s constitution. My remarks are below.
___________________
I’ve been asked to discuss the multiple ways in which Christian Nationalism is inconsistent with America’s founding documents—especially the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. It’s always a good idea to define our terms, so let me begin by listing the basic premises of Christian Nationalism—a political movement that my friends in the Christian clergy assure me is anything but authentically Christian.
Christian Nationalists begin with the ahistorical insistence that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, and that one must be a Christian (or– let’s be honest here—a White Christian) in order to be a “true American.” Christian Nationalists reject Church-State separation and believe that civil government should impose their version of “Christian” behavior on all American citizens. That would entail—at a minimum—banning abortion, rejecting same-sex marriage (and for that matter, criminalizing homosexuality), and reinstating patriarchy.
Virtually every tenet of Christian Nationalism is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I won’t spend time today explaining how the movement distorts and mischaracterizes either Christianity or the actual history of this country. What I will do is “compare and contrast” some of the foundational provisions of America’s constituent documents—and especially the Bill of Rights— documents that reflect what I call “The American Idea”–with the absolutely contrary premises of Christian Nationalism.
What do I mean when I talk about the “American Idea”? What is that Idea, and what were its political and philosophical roots? Where did our Constitutional system come from, and how did it differ from prior beliefs about the nature of government power and authority? Answering those questions does require a visit to the history of America.
A while back, while I was doing research for one of my books, I came across an illuminating explanation of the stark differences between the original settlers who came to this country—those the scholar called the “Planting Fathers”—and the men who would draft our legal system—the men we call the Founding Fathers. As he pointed out, the Puritans and Pilgrims who first came to America had defined liberty—including religious liberty– as “freedom to do the right thing”—freedom to worship and obey the right God in the true church, and to use the power of government to ensure that their neighbors did too. But the Founders who crafted our constitution some 150 years later were products of the intervening Enlightenment and they had accepted its dramatically different definition of liberty.
Enlightenment philosophers defined liberty as personal autonomy—an individual’s right to make his or her own moral and political decisions, free of government coercion. In the Enlightenment’s libertarian construction, liberty meant freedom to “do your own thing,” subject to two very important caveats: you could do your own thing so long as you did not thereby harm the person or property of someone else, and so long as you recognized the equal right of others to do their “own thing.” The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are firmly grounded in that Enlightenment understanding of the nature of liberty.
It’s also important to understand that, as a result, America’s constitutional system is largely based on a concept we call “negative liberty.” The Founders believed that our individual rights don’t come from some gracious grants from government; rather, those rights are “natural,” meaning that we are entitled to certain basic rights simply by virtue of being human (thus the term “human rights”), and that a legitimate government is obliged to respect and protect those natural rights. If you think about it, the Bill of Rights is essentially a list of things that government—“the state”—is forbidden to do. For example, the state cannot prescribe our religious or political beliefs, it cannot search us without probable cause, it cannot censor our expression—and it is forbidden from doing such things even when popular majorities might favor such actions. That concept of a limited and constrained government is absolutely antithetical to Christian Nationalism, which seeks to use the power of the state to compel behaviors consistent with their version of Christianity.
Robert P. Jones, chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute, is among the many scholars who have described why that Christian Nationalist approach is inconsistent with the American system, writing that –and I quote–“A worldview that claims God as a political partisan and dehumanizes one’s political opponents as evil is fundamentally antidemocratic, and a mind-set that believes that our nation was divinely ordained to be a promised land for Christians of European descent is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion and equality of all.”
The Founders’ view of freedom of religion is incorporated in the First Amendment, which protects religious liberty through the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses – clauses that, operating together, require the separation of Church and State.
Now, as fundamentalists like to point out, the actual phrase “separation of church and state” doesn’t appear in the text of the First Amendment. What they prefer to ignore is that that the phrase refers to the way the First Amendment’s two religion clauses operate. However, the concept of church-state separation had long preceded its incorporation into the First Amendment. The first documented use of the actual phrase was by Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, well before the Revolutionary War. The most famous use, of course, was that of Thomas Jefferson. When Jefferson was President, a group of Danbury Baptists wrote to him asking for an official interpretation of the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Jefferson’s response was that the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause were intended to “erect a wall of separation” between government and religion. What is less often noted is that since Jefferson’s response was official, it was duly confirmed by the then serving U.S. Attorney General before it was transmitted to the Danbury Baptists.
Historians tell us that the Establishment Clause went through more than 20 drafts, with the Founders rejecting formulations like “there shall be no National Church” as inadequate to their intent. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The courts have uniformly held that this language not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion or state Church but also prohibits government actions that endorse or sponsor religion, favor one religion over another, or that prefer religion to non-religion, or for that matter, non-religion over religion.
Meanwhile, the Free Exercise Clause prohibits government from interfering with the “free exercise” of religion. It protects the right of Americans to choose our own beliefs, and to express those beliefs without fear of state disapproval. Read together, the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause require government neutrality in matters of religion. The Religion Clauses prohibit Government from either benefiting or burdening religious belief.
One way to think about the operation of the religion clauses is that the Establishment Clause forbids the public sector (that is, government) from either favoring or disfavoring religion, and the Free Exercise Clause forbids government from interfering with the expression of religious beliefs in the public square (that is, the myriad non-governmental venues where citizens exchange ideas and opinions.)
When states misuse their authority and play favorites, when they privilege some religious beliefs over others, people who do not share those privileged beliefs are relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Separation of church and state prevents adherents of majority religions from using government to force their beliefs or practices on others, and it keeps agencies of government from interfering with the internal operations of churches, synagogues and mosques.
As to that original purpose of neutrality, I’ve come across few explanations better than the one offered by John Leland. Leland, who lived from 1754 to1851, was an evangelical Baptist preacher who had strong views on the individual’s relationship to God, the inviolability of the individual conscience, and the limited nature of human knowledge. He wrote, “religion is a matter between God and individuals; religious opinions of men not being the objects of civil government, nor in any way under its control…Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics.”
(Leland could hardly have envisioned our current government’s belief that it does have the right to interfere with the principles of mathematics and statistics…But that’s a scary subject for another day…)
The bottom line is that we Americans live in a diverse society, where different religions hold dramatically different beliefs about the matters Christian Nationalists want government to dictate. For example, in several traditions, including my own, abortion is permissible. Nevertheless, here in Indiana, where our legislators routinely ignore the official neutrality required by the First Amendment, lawmakers have passed a law that imposes a belief held by some Christian denominations on members of denominations and faith traditions who do not share those religious beliefs.
It would be a serious mistake to think that Christian Nationalism is only inconsistent with the First Amendment. The racism and misogyny that is built into it also run afoul of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantees. The constitutional requirement of equal protection is intended to prevent majorities (or in this case, activist minorities) from using government to disadvantage individuals and minorities of whom they disapprove
Essentially, the Equal Protection Clause requires government to treat citizens as individuals, not as members of a group. In the United States, our laws are supposed to be based upon a person’s civic behavior, not on gender, race or other markers of identity. So long as we citizens obey the laws, pay our taxes, and generally conduct ourselves in a way that does not endanger or disadvantage others, we are entitled to full equality with other citizens. That guarantee of equal civic rights is one of the aspects of American life that has been most admired around the globe; it has unleashed the productivity of previously marginalized groups and contributed significantly to American prosperity. Christian Nationalism strikes at the very heart of that commitment to civic equality—it would privilege certain citizens over others based solely on their skin color and religious identity. It’s hard to think of anything more anti-American.
The conflict of Christian Nationalism with the Constitution and Bill of Rights isn’t limited to the First and Fourteenth Amendments. There is another incredibly important principle embedded in the Bill of Rights that we are already in danger of losing to the sustained assault of these pseudo-religious fanatics: the doctrine of substantive due process, often called the right to privacy or the right to personal autonomy.
I agree with the numerous constitutional scholars who argue that, although the right to personal autonomy or self-government is not explicitly mentioned, the principle is inherent in the Bill of Rights. That’s because it is impossible to give content to the rights that are specifically enumerated unless we recognize the doctrine of substantive due process –and that impossibility was explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court in 1965, in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. Connecticut’s legislature had passed a law prohibiting the use of birth control by married couples. The legislation prohibited doctors from prescribing contraceptives and prohibited pharmacists from filling any such prescriptions. The Supreme Court struck down the law, holding that whether a couple used contraceptives simply wasn’t any of the government’s business; it was not a decision that government was entitled to make
The Court recognized that an individual right to personal autonomy—a right to self-government—is essential to the enforcement of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights. Justices White and Harlan found explicit confirmation of it in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—which is where the terminology “substantive due process” comes from. Wherever it resided–in a “penumbra” or in the Ninth or 14th Amendment—the Justices agreed on both its presence and importance.
The doctrine of Substantive Due Process draws a line between decisions that government has the legitimate authority to make, and decisions which, in our system, must be left up to the individual. I used to tell my students that the Bill of Rights is essentially a list of things that government is forbidden to decide. What books you read, what opinions you form, what prayers you say (or don’t)—such matters are far outside the legitimate role of government. The issue isn’t whether that book is dangerous or inappropriate, or that religion is false, or whether you should marry someone of the same sex, or whether you should procreate: the issue is who gets to make that decision—the individual or the government. Allowing any unit of government to decide such matters violates the most fundamental premise of the Bill of Rights and the philosophy that underlies our constitutional system. Yet that is precisely what Christian Nationalists want.
Let me be clear: Government has the right–indeed, the obligation–to intervene when a person’s behaviors are harming people who haven’t consented to that harm. (Mask mandates to protect public health, or requirements that students be vaccinated before entering a public school classroom are examples.) Otherwise, in the constitutional system devised by the Founders, government must leave us alone.
For a long time, secular and religiously tolerant Americans dismissed warnings about the growing fundamentalist assaults on that principle, confident that their right to self-determination was secure. The conservative Christian reasoning in Dobbs, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, justified an invasion of that personal liberty, and it was shocking. For the first time in American history, a Supreme Court had withdrawn a constitutional right that had been considered settled for over fifty years.
As polarizing as that decision was, there is still very little understanding of its scope, and the fact that it threatens far more than the health, well-being and self-determination of American women.
In this country, different religions—and different denominations within those religions– have very different beliefs about the status of women and about procreation. What amounts to the Supreme Court’s elevation of a particular version of Christianity has understandably engendered an enormous and negative reaction–a majority of Americans, including a majority of religiously-affiliated Americans, disagree with the Court’s decision, and are even more opposed to emerging efforts to make access to contraception difficult or impossible. What is still not fully appreciated, however, is the fact that Dobbs was more than just an effort to force women to give birth—it was a devastating assault on the American definition of individual liberty, a definition which draws a line between legitimate and impermissible government actions.
If there is no right to privacy—no substantive due process guarantee–if government can force women to give birth, government can move to make interracial or same-sex marriages illegal. It can outlaw birth control. It can forbid divorce. In short, it can decide those “intimate matters” that the Founders and former Supreme Court decisions protected against government over-reach.
So far, my discussion of these issues has been necessarily abstract—a discussion of principles. Let me just conclude by reminding you of the challenge we are facing right here in Indiana, where we have statewide officials who are self-identified Christian Nationalists and who demonstrate daily that they neither understand nor respect the Constitution.
The most obvious example is our Lieutenant Governor, Micah Beckwith, who has pushed the racist White Replacement Theory, compared vaccination policies to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews, advocated that brown people crossing the border be shot, and accused the Indy Star, members of the left and Methodist and Lutheran ministers of wanting to cut off the private parts of children. When he served briefly on a library board, he tried to censor and remove books of which he disapproved, and he constantly engages in ugly diatribes against gay citizens. Most recently, he claimed that undocumented immigrants aren’t entitled to due process.
Todd Rokita, Indiana’s embarrassing Attorney General, has hounded and harassed a doctor who legally aborted a ten-year-old rape victim, and is engaged in a wide-ranging vendetta to root out efforts to foster racial and religious inclusion. I won’t go through Jim Banks’ numerous assaults on the American Idea, since as Fort Wayne residents you are undoubtedly already familiar with them. These men are so busy pursing a Christian Nationalist culture war, they don’t have much time to attend to the duties of their offices. They provide an excellent example of what government would be like in a country run by Christian Nationalists—aka, the Christian Taliban.
A country in the thrall of a Christian Nationalist worldview would look nothing like the America that most of us love and want to protect. We live in a dangerous time, but we cannot give in to fear and reaction, and we absolutely cannot allow Christian Nationalists, White Supremacists and other assorted bigots to jettison the legal system that has fostered American progress and been a beacon to oppressed people around the world.
Throughout our history, America has had to reckon with significant numbers of people who never accepted the premises of the system devised by the Founders. There have always been Puritans who–like the Planting Fathers–believed that they should be able to use government to control the lives and behaviors of everyone else. Throughout our history, we have always had to deal with America’s “original sin” of racism. We’ve had dark times. It wasn’t just the Civil War—I’m only one of the many old folks in this room who have lived through the Civil Rights movement, the women’s liberation movement, and the gay rights movement. American liberty has always been a work in progress—and has always been frantically resisted by those who have felt threatened and disoriented by social change. That said, the country has moved—granted, in fits and starts—toward realizing the ideals of liberty and civic equality set out in our constituent documents.
Because I am old, I often think of a folk song that was popular during the great upheavals of the 60’s. It was sung by Peter, Paul and Mary, and the chorus was “don’t let the light go out.” That should be our motto as we face this latest eruption of deeply unAmerican challenges from people who are threatened by diversity and dead-set against equality and inclusion.
Elections have consequences–and in Indiana, those consequences are potentially frightening.
Thanks to gerrymandering and the refusal of rural voters to cast a ballot for anyone who doesn’t have an R by their name, the state is currently “governed” (note quotation marks) by a slate of pathetic wanna-bes and Christian Nationalists. We have a governor who is clearly more interested in the title (and in staying in Trump/MAGA’s good graces) than in policy; an Attorney General who evidently skipped his law school class on ethics, and who has turned the office into a performative culture war outpost; a Secretary of State who was elected despite obvious incompetence and corruption and has continued to exhibit both.
And then, of course, there is our Lieutenant Governor, Micah Beckwith, who consistently displays his ignorance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights while working to turn Indiana into a Christian theocracy.
At a closed-door meeting in April, Micah Beckwith and members of what the Indiana lieutenant governor called his Anti-Woke Advisory Committee laid out an aggressive strategy to expand conservative influence in public schools and push back against what the group identified as “woke policy creep.”
The committee detailed plans to launch conservative student clubs, reshape teacher training programs, and identify school districts where diversity and pro-LGBTQ+ policies are in place, according to meeting notes obtained by The Indiana Citizen and verified as authentic by a person familiar with the committee. Many of the discussion topics were aimed at ramping up political pressure on school boards.
Attendees at the meeting included the Executive Director and Education Director of the far-ritht Indiana Family Institute, Former Attorney General Curtis Hill ( you will recall his law license was suspended over groping allegations), Jay Hart, a Morgan County conservative who unsuccessfully challenged state Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray in a 2024 Republican primary, State Senator Craig Haggard, a Republican from Mooresville, and several other Christian Nationalist activists.
The committee was formed by Beckwith, who self-identifies as a Christian nationalist, and the Statehouse File reports that the meeting focused on “specific steps to launch conservative clubs in schools and target teachers, education colleges, and programs they see as promoting pro-LGBTQ+ content or “leftist ideology.”
Beckwith’s animus toward the gay community and his efforts to marginalize the members of that community are longstanding, and the committee spent considerable time focusing on potential anti-gay measures. Participants noted that some teachers continue to display LGBTQ+ flags and classroom décor to signal inclusion, which they described as a way to “push agendas.”
I guess it’s only an “agenda” when it isn’t consistent with your effort to “Christianize” the state, an effort that somehow isn’t an “agenda.”
The committee extended its focus beyond classrooms to nonprofit organizations, recommending audits of groups with state-issued specialty license plates to ensure they were in compliance with what they called “anti-DEI executive orders.” The Indianapolis Youth Group, which provides services and support to LGBTQ+ youth, was specifically named for review.
The linked report also documents Beckwith’s relationships with figures of several national far-right groups.
During the meeting, members proposed a quarterly “Woke Radar Report” to track what they consider “problem districts” and suggested mechanisms that would give Beckwith a platform to pressure local school boards. According to the article, the institution of such a report “would function both as a watchdog tool and a political instrument, spotlighting schools where progressive policies are growing.”
The article has much more–all pretty terrifying, and absolutely none of it consistent with the job description of the office of Lieutenant Governor. That office is charged with heading up the Indiana State Department of Agriculture, the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority, and the Office of Community and Rural Affairs. (I believe it also heads up efforts to increase tourism.) Nowhere does that portfolio include the Christianizing of the schools.
Of course, the Lieutenant Governor also becomes Governor if the sitting governor dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to serve. I’m no fan of empty suit Mike Braun, but I certainly hope he’s healthy…
These sorry excuses for state “leadership” sure don’t make me proud to be a Hoosier….
