Baptists helped found the American debate over the 'separation of church and state'

Photo by Joshua Hoehne, Unsplash

Beginning in America's fledgling colonies during the 1700s and moving into the present day, Baptists have helped shape the national debate over religious freedom in the U.S. for nearly 400 years. "An honest look at their history reveals that Baptists have taken various stances in this debate," writes Christopher Schelin, a political theologies professor for The Conversation.

The ideal of dividing church and state business "famously traces back to an exchange between Thomas Jefferson and a group of Baptists," Schelin writes. But a nascent version of separating church and state powers began years earlier, with a Rhode Island preacher, Roger Williams, who helped found the nation's first Baptist church.

As Baptists practiced their faith in early America, differences in approach to how government and religion intersected emerged. Baptists who believed in strict separation of church and state held that "the conscience of each individual must be respected," Schelin explains. Other Baptists leaned toward an ideal where the "government cooperated with religion."

The historical and current debate between the two perspectives, along with other renditions of what constitutes a balanced relationship between church and state, shapes some of the disagreement about public displays of the Ten Commandments today.

In the fall of 2025, Texas law mandated that the Ten Commandments be displayed in all public school classrooms. Some Texas citizens, including the Rev. Griff Martin, a Baptist pastor, objected to the law and filed suit.

Martin rejects the Ten Commandments mandate as "not just a violation of American precepts but religious ones as well," Schelin writes. In a press release, Martin said that "the separation of church and state (is) a bedrock principle of my family’s Baptist heritage.”

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a Baptist from Louisiana, supports his state's mandate to hang the Ten Commandments in all public schools because he "perceives the matter differently," Schelin adds. "The Louisiana law is not an effort to establish religion, but to acknowledge the country’s 'history and tradition,' Johnson told reporters in 2024."

"Are you a good Baptist if you oppose government-mandated displays of the Ten Commandments?" Schelin asks. "Or are you a good Baptist if you support them? From a historical perspective, the answer to both questions is yes."

New speaker has worn his evangelical beliefs on his sleeve, but tries to assure moderates that they are part of his team

Rep. Mike Johnson at an American Legion event in his district
in 2021. (Photo by Henrietta Wildsmith, Shreveport Times)

New House Speaker Mike Johnson, who represents a 41-percent rural district in northwest Louisiana, "is known for placing his evangelical Christianity at the center of his political life and policy positions" and "has expressed skepticism about some definitions of the separation of church and state, placing himself in a newer cohort of conservative Christianity that aligns more closely with former President Donald J. Trump and that some describe as Christian nationalism," write Annie Karni, Ruth Graham and Steve Eder of The New York Times. "Now, as the most powerful Republican in Washington, he is in a position to inject it squarely into the national political discourse, where he has argued for years that it belongs."

But Johnson might not have been elected speaker without assurances he gave to Republican moderates from closely divided districts, suggest Marianna Sotomayor, Jacqueline Alemany, Leigh Ann Caldwell and Theodoric Meyer of The Washington Post. They report that Rep. Marcus J. Molinaro of New York, a freshman from a swing district, "spoke with Johnson about his track record of remarks, op-eds and bills criticizing the LGBTQ+ community," and "Johnson reassured Molinaro that he would no longer represent just his conservative Louisiana district, according to a person familiar with the conversation. Instead, Johnson continued, he would represent the entire Republican conference and protect vulnerable swing-district incumbents like Molinaro. Molinaro went on to support Johnson on the House floor, and was chosen to escort Johnson into the chamber once he was elected, which vulnerable Republicans considered a sign that the ultra-conservative new speaker viewed them as part of the team."

Johnson's election may have also been a result of political practicality and expedience. Looking at the Nov. 17 deadline when government funding runs out, Republican moderates "made the calculation that a government shutdown would be worse for their reelections than a conservative speaker, especially in an election year when Trump is likely to be on the top of the Republican ticket and Democrats’ main focus — not Johnson," the Post reports. "The speed of Johnson’s election, which prevented spending much time poring over his record, have left some Republicans alarmed at what reporters and researchers have already unearthed."

But moderates and other "governing-focused Republicans" say Johnson's relative anyonymity is a good thing. One told the Post, “It’s a great opportunity. Think about it. He’s a blank canvas to everyone else. He has the capacity to now build up his reputation and I think he’s suited to kind of build it by holding us together, not forcing us into things we don’t want to do.” Such members "consider Johnson more malleable than McCarthy," the Post reports. "Johnson — who told Republicans he met with that he has an 'open heart, open mind' — knows he must decide how to spend his political currency and whether to use it to fulfill promises he’s made to lawmakers."

"Moderate House Republicans say they have no qualms about his voting record.," Ken Tran reports for USA Today. "They say Republicans still control the House with just a four-seat majority, which means each member can leverage an outsized amount of power with their vote. Just as ultraconservatives wielded power during Speaker Kevin McCarthy's era, moderates can use their votes as loud voices."

Debate over prayer in public schools has resurfaced; some are worried protections for the non-religious will be eroded

(Photo by Camilla Forte,
The Hechinger Report)

Should adults be allowed to promote prayer in U.S. public schools? The hotly debated question has resurfaced as Christian legal campaigns seek to legalize the practice; schools in one Louisiana county may point to what other schools might expect, reports Linda K. Wertheimer for The Hechinger Report, which covers education.

"In 2018, four parents sued Bossier Parish schools for promoting religion and coercing students to participate in prayer. They argued that the prayer was a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause, which calls for a separation of church and state. The lawsuit listed more than 100 church/state violations, including teacher-led prayer in classrooms, prayer at sporting events and faculty- and administrator-led prayer at graduations. "It was all flatly unconstitutional," Richard Katskee, former legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who represented the Bossier Parish plaintiffs, told Wertheimer.

The plaintiffs won, and a federal judge "ordered the nearly-23,000-student school district to stop promoting religion," but "A different lawsuit was winding its way through the courts, backed by organizations that had long supported school prayer, over the right of a high school football coach to pray on the field after games," Werthheimer notes. "Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of the coach, Joe Kennedy, who sued the Bremerton, Washington, school district after it disciplined him when he refused to end the practice of praying at the 50-yard line following games. . . . The decision described Kennedy's prayer as a quiet, personal act," but Wertheimer reports, "Katskee told me that students who declined to participate 'got harassed and harangued'."

Since previous court decisions separate church and state, based on the First Amendment, how can adults legally promote prayer in public schools? The amendment guarantees "free exercise" of religion, so they campaign in the name of religious freedom. Wertheimer writes, "The way they define that freedom could lead to prayer becoming commonplace at public schools."

With the Kennedy decision, “The other side is emboldened, and the other side is not individuals,” said Andrew Seidel, spokesman for Americans United. “It is a group of well-funded Christian nationalist legal outfits looking for these cases and seizing upon them so they can take them to court.” Wertheimer adds that First Liberty, which helped win the Kennedy case, "rejects the 'Christian nationalist' label," saying it also represent non-Christian religious groups.

"Attorneys from First Liberty and Liberty Counsel, another prominent conservative legal organization, told me the door has opened to bring prayer back to schools across the nation, at least when it comes to school-sponsored events," Wertheimer reports. Keisha Russell and Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, note that the Kennedy decision "overruled the so-called Lemon test, a three-pronged standard set out in a 1971 ruling that delineated criteria the government must meet in order to comply with the clause defining the separation of church and state. One prong states that the government can assist religion only if there is no 'excessive entanglement' between church and state. Justices later generally interpreted this to mean that a public entity cannot endorse religion. Liberty Counsel’s lawyers recently analyzed court rulings since 1971 and found at least 7,000 citations of the Lemon test. Staver said all of those cases must be reexamined. His firm hopes to reverse the 1992 ruling Lee v. Weisman, for example, which prohibited clergy-led prayer at public school graduations partly on the grounds that the graduates in attendance were coerced to participate because they had to be at the event. Staver said that argument no longer holds."

Churches donated to candidates with conservative agendas; town rejected their picks; donations are under investigation

Campaign signs outside polling location at Willis Church of
Christ in Abilene, Texas. (Photo by Johnathan Johnson, ProPublica)

The issue of local churches' involvement in elections, often present but rarely highlighted, has come to the forefront in Abilene, Texas, Jessica Priest of ProPublica reports. While the Internal Revenue Service has consistently looked away from churches donating or even sermonizing in support of candidates, some in this city of 125,000 did not. "Voters in West Texas decisively rejected three conservative Christian candidates who campaigned on infusing religious values into local decision making. . . . But the support the candidates received from local churches during the race has prompted calls for state and federal investigations and triggered a local political reckoning," Priest reports. Weldon Hurt, who was elected mayor over one of the candidates, told Priest, "I think there should definitely be some penalties. . . . I think there has to be a way to curtail this from happening again. . . . I think there should be some discipline to these churches."

ProPublica and The Texas Tribune reported a day before the May 6 election that "three churches had donated a total of $800 to the campaign of Scott Beard, a pastor who was running for City Council," Proest writes. The donations violate The Johnson Amendment, a measure named after its author, former president Lyndon B. Johnson, when he was Senate majority leader, which prohibits nonprofits from intervening in political campaigns. "Beard, a senior pastor at Fountaingate Fellowship, said the donations were a mistake and that he would be returning the money. But within days after Beard's defeat to retired Air Force Col. Brian Yates, a national group that espouses the separation of church and state demanded that the IRS revoke the churches' tax exemptions."

Among the three conservatives who lost "touted their involvement in an effort to get abortion outlawed in Abilene. . . . . And all three candidates spoke about the need to prohibit family-friendly drag shows within the city limits and establish community standards. . .   [to] protect children. Beard said in interviews that those standards should be based on 'Judeo-Christian principles' that he believes serve as the nation’s foundation," Priest reports. "Yates, Beard’s opponent, said it was overly simplistic to cast the election as a fight between religious conservatives and fiscal ones. He said he too is a Christian who opposes abortion. A key difference, he said, was that he and his allies don’t believe that establishing community standards is the role of government. . . . .The local Republican Party endorsed Beard. . . In the end, the three candidates each lost by at least 29 percentage points, according to unofficial final results."

While Beard's Johnson Amendment violations may go unchecked -- there is only one publicly known example of the IRS revoking a church's tax exemption -- "The church donations may also violate Texas election law, which prohibits both nonprofit and for-profit corporations from making political contributions to candidates or political committees," Priest notes. "The Texas Ethics Commission is charged with investigating such violations and can assess a civil penalty of up to $5,000 or triple the amount at issue, whichever is greater, said J.R. Johnson, the commission's executive director. . . . Violations are considered third-degree felonies. Beard has had at least two pending state ethics complaints filed against his campaign."

A conservative county in Michigan gives a glimpse of what it's like when ardent social conservatives try to govern

UPDATE, March 1: Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has admonished the county board for its "lack of transparency and good governance," The Bulletin of the Michigan Press Association reports. Nessel said the state open-meetings law should be changed to require public bodies to set an agenda 48 hours before the meeting and allow them to modify it only in "exigent circumstances," and include in the definition of "public official" someone who has been elected but not sworn in.

Board meetings have drawn crowds and hours of
public comment. (Photo by David Siders, Politico)

When ardent conservatives took control of a county government in Western Michigan, its meetings were more heavily attended, but the focus strayed from management to ideologies, reports David Siders of Politico: "Ottawa County governing board’s most recent meeting addressed a roof repair and resurfacing contract . . . . but over the course of a meeting that ran over four hours, public speaker after speaker in three-minute increments were debating something else entirely, something far more spiritual — to what extent their government should, or should not, pursue Judeo-Christian values. . . . Lots of people spoke in favor. They warned of the 'tyranny' of mask mandates, the 'sexualization of our children.'"

Since January, the meetings have a new focus, "after an upstart band of far-right Republicans unseated seven more traditionalist Republican incumbents, seizing a majority on the 11-member board," Siders writes. "The hardliners, members of a group called 'Ottawa Impact,' had signed a 'Contract with Ottawa' promising to 'respect the values and faith of the people of Ottawa County.'. . . They’d pledged to 'recognize our nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage.' . . . Roger Bergman, the sole incumbent Republican commissioner the group failed to oust, had attended one of those forums last year, and as he sat in the audience, he grew concerned. But even Bergman, who at 76 has decades in local politics, wasn’t sure what it would all mean when it came time for a new, far-right majority to actually govern."

Given the chance to govern, the new board made sweeping changes."They fired the county administrator and replaced him with John Gibbs, a former Trump administration official, Christian missionary, failed congressional candidate and election denier. They closed the county’s office of diversity, equity and inclusion. They picked for their new public health officer — pending state approval — a safety manager at an HVAC service company. . . And they rewrote the county motto from 'Where You Belong,' to 'Where Freedom Rings.'"

“Oh, my God,” Bergman said to Siders after a commission meeting where a young man in a hoodie, Caden Hembrough, thanked the board majority for standing against 'forces of darkness.' Bergman told Siders, “It’s becoming more and more evident that these people are Christian nationalists. . . .They have chosen to weaponize Christianity."

Ottawa County, Michigan (Wikipedia map)

County government "may not strike you as the likeliest place for a spiritual crusade. It wasn’t in Ottawa County, either, before Covid," Siders writes. "But public health mandates related to the pandemic infuriated a group of parents who complained — and litigated, unsuccessfully — about 'government overreach' in schools. . . . Sylvia Rhodea, a co-founder of Ottawa Impact and, now, vice chair of the county commission, described the election as one that “will decide whether we are going to save America, and that starts local.” America, she said, is a place of opportunity 'built on the Constitution, Christianity and capitalism.' The office of diversity, equity and inclusion, she said, was promoting 'woke ideology.'”

Not everyone agrees with the changes. "The fallout has seemingly come from everywhere. In an email to the board, the county’s outgoing attorney warned that firings of multiple senior county officials would jeopardize the county’s bond rating, saying, 'stable counties don’t fire their corporation counsel and administrator,' Siders reports. "In The Holland Sentinel, it’s been headline after headline, like 'Ottawa County’s prospective health officer has no experience. Here’s why that could be a problem.'. . . then there are the hourslong public comment sessions at the board’s regular meetings. There are supporters, and there are critics — people who call the board members 'fascist,' or 'troglodytic.''

Field Reichardt, a longtime observer of politics in the county, told Siders what he thought was going on: “This is a microcosm of what is happening nationally, the changes that are threatening American democracy. This Christian nationalist movement truly frightens me. . . . They think they are doing God’s work, and they truly believe it. They are beyond right-wing. They are Proud Boys-ian. Clearly, that’s what they are, when they refer to diversity, equity and inclusion as being ‘divisive.’”

Christian Nationalists: A personal telling and a history that dates to the Doctrine of Discovery over 500 years ago

"I was raised in a church of terrorists. The preacher pounded on the lectern while he boomed that all queers deserved to die, that mixed marriages were going to lead to the downfall of 'our way of life,'" Appalachian Kentucky author Silas House writes for Time. 

Silas House (Berea College photo)

House grew up in a family of Christian Nationalists: "I knew by then that I was gay and for that alone I’d surely be left behind when everyone I knew was whisked away in the Rapture, God’s chosen people disappearing 'in the twinkling of an eye.' Although I felt tremendous love in that church, I also realized how quickly that love would be extinguished if they knew who I really was."
House said that his childhood nightmares are alive today, "In North Carolina Lt. Gov. and pastor Mark Robinson has said that being gay or transgender is 'filth,' 'garbage' and 'perversion.' House said he lives in fear of what this country might be like should Christian Nationalists gain control: "It will be a country where women, people of color, LGBTQ people, and people of other faiths will be stripped of their rights in laws justified by scripture."
How does Christian Nationalism gives one group power to terrorizes another? Laura Harbert Allen reports on this question in 100 Days in Appalachia: "Robert P. Jones, president and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute, believes many Christians, especially white Christians, have a responsibility to understand a concept known as the Doctrine of Discovery, based on a papal bull or decree issued by Pope Alexander VI in 1493."
“The basic idea was that Europeans, who were Christian, had the blessings of the church and the authority of the state to so-called discover any of the lands that were occupied by non-Christian, non-European people,” Jones told Allen, "And when they did they had the right to dominate those people and confiscate those lands.”

"Until the early 18th century, killing Indigenous people and the enslavement of Africans was based on religion. Christians killing 'heathens' and 'heretics,' after all, was a historic fact long before the colonization of the New World," writes Allen. "According to Yale professor Phillip Gorski as enslaved and Indigenous people started to convert to Christianity, the justification for their treatment became skin color." UPDATE, Nov. 10: The Rev. Russell Moore, editor of Christianity Today, defines Christian nationalism as "the use of Christian doctrines or symbols for the maintenance of an ethnic or a national identity. . . . It's anti-democratic by nature." Moore spoke to New Yorker Editor David Remnick in a podcast interview.

IRS looks away while church leaders endorse candidates

"For nearly 70 years, federal law has barred churches from directly involving themselves in political campaigns, but the IRS has largely abdicated its enforcement responsibilities as churches have become more brazen about publicly backing candidates," report Jeremy Schwartz and Jessica Priest of the Texas Tribune, in a story co-published with ProPublica.

The two news organizations say they reviewed "dozens" of church services posted online, and "Many readers shared sermons with us." They say they found 18 examples "over the past two years that appeared to violate the Johnson Amendment, a measure named after its author, former President Lyndon B. Johnson [when he was Senate majority leader]. Some pastors have gone so far as to paint candidates they oppose as demonic."

Screenshot of video from Texas Tribune

That's what Dallas-area pastor Brandon Burden called the Frisco City Council in a sermon last year, also saying, “I got a candidate that God wants to win. I got a mayor that God wants to unseat. God wants to undo. God wants to shift the balance of power in our city. And I have jurisdiction over that this morning.” The story also cites examples from Alaska, California and New Mexico.

The law limits the charitable and religious tax exemption to organizations that do "not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." It allows churches to host political speakers and discuss political issues, "but because donations to churches are tax-deductible and because churches don’t have to file financial disclosures with the IRS, without such a rule donors seeking to influence elections could go undetected, said Andrew Seidel, vice president of strategic communications for the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State," Priest and Schwartz report. Seidel told them, "If you pair the ability to wade into partisan politics with a total absence of financial oversight and transparency, you’re essentially creating super PACs that are black holes."

The Internal Revenue Service declined comment, but there is only one publicly known example of it revoking a church's tax exemption, Schwartz and Priest report: A New York church ran newspaper ads attacking Bill Clinton days before his 1992 election, starting "a long legal battle that ended with a U.S. appeals court siding with the federal agency. . . . The Congressional Research Service said in 2012 that a second church had lost its tax-exempt status, but that its identity “is not clear.”

In a country that is already starkly divided on many issues, partisan church rhetoric may increase the divide. Andrew Whitehead, a sociologist at the University of Indiana-Purdue, who studies Christian nationalism, told Schwartz and Priest, “It creates hurdles for a healthy, functioning, pluralistic democratic society . . . It’s really hard to overcome.”

News-media roundup: Public broadcaster to buy Denton Record-Chronicle; Hearst builds digital subs, is bullish on papers; Freedom Forum funds First Amendment reporter

Wednesday, Sept. 28, is World News Day.

The National Trust for Local News says it's "announcing a new model of community journalism," a partnership between the Denton Record-Chronicle and the main public broadcaster for North Texas. The paper would be bought by KERA, which will become the paper's "community anchor," a phrase that defines the new model. The two "are fundraising to close the acquisition in 2023. This model is one of four that will be supported through the Trust’s $17.25 million Community Journalism Impact Fund I." The trust's mission is to keep community news media locally owned.

Family-owned Hearst Corp. still believes in newspapers, CEO Steve Swartz tells Axios. Its 24 dailies and 52 weeklies have 338,000 digital subscriptions, up from 65,000 in 2018.

The McCormick Foundation announced $7.5 million in journalism grants, including one to Capitol News Illinois "to meet the need for greater scrutiny in Springfield," Northwestern University reports.

With money from the Freedom Forum, the Tennessean will be hiring a First Amendment reporter with a broad geographic purview, the South. Read more here.

The American Press Institute announced 31 grants from its Election Coverage and Community Listening Fund. Grantees with large rural audiences include Alaska Public Media; The Assembly NC and the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media; Carolina Public Press; Conecta Arizona; Lee Enterprises' Montana newspapers; the Raleigh News & Observer; and VTDigger.

Sunday, Sept. 25, is First Amendment Day

Sunday, Sept. 25, is First Amendment Day, promoted by The Freedom Forum.

"It’s a great day to reflect on the five freedoms the First Amendment protects," the foundation says, listing three ways to "celebrate our fundamental freedoms":

· Learn more about your freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition by following us on Twitter and Instagram.

· Listen to this new episode of “Reelfoot Forward: A West Tennessee Podcast” to hear about how we’re celebrating our freedoms at a Freedom Forum First Amendment Festival in Union City, Tenn., on Sept. 24.

· Read how the First Amendment shields our beliefs and views from government interference in a new column by Freedom Forum Senior Fellow Gene Policinski.

'School choice' and public support of charter schools faces rural resistance even in Republican-controlled statehouses

"School choice," a favorite issue for many conservatives, especially religious ones who want public support for private schools, has had a hard time getting traction in some states because of opposition from rural legislators.

The Kentucky General Assembly authorized privately organized but publicly recognized charter schools years ago, but only this year did it provide funding for them, and by a very narrow margin in the state House. Rural lawmakers saw little if any benefit for their communities, which are unlikely sites for charter schools.

Much the same is happening in Texas, Brian Lopez reports for the Texas Tribune: "Rep. Gary VanDeaver, a Republican whose district includes 30 rural school districts, is still unconvinced. He was one of several lawmakers who helped kill school-choice legislation in 2017. He said one of the concerns he’s hearing from parents is that they’re paying property taxes, which fund public schools, but have opted for either home schooling or sending their kids to private school." He told Lopez, “I prefer to reduce their property taxes, so they have the option of spending that money any way they choose, whether it be alternative education choices, saving for college or purchasing a new car.”

Lopez reports, "Conservative efforts to pass school choice measures have failed largely because there are few private schools or charter schools as alternatives outside the state’s larger urban areas. Also, the public school systems are a large economic and employment driver for most small towns. . . . VanDeaver has been informed that the religious private schools in his area are uninterested in public money. He also worries about the damage to the local public school district a voucher program could cause."

Iowa weekly reports on local native who was journalist but runs on Trump's vote-fraud lie for Ariz. governor, and leads

Kari Lake (Screenshot of part of North Scott Press website)

UPDATE, Aug. 4: The Associated Press called the race for Lake, who faces Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs in the general election.

When she was growing up in eastern Iowa, Kari Lake was on the student newspaper staff at North Scott High School in Eldridge, starting a career in journalism. Today, she is the leading Republican candidate for governor of Arizona in Tuesday's primary, waving Donald Trump's flag and "focusing heavily on border security, Christianity in public schools, and perpetuating Trump’s lie about fraud in the 2020 presidential election," reports Mark Ridolfi of The North Scott Press, in a "Local girl makes splash" story that is more incisive than most. 

Ridolfi reports on locals who have made financial contributions to Lake's campaign: "Most, but not all, support her politics." Susan Castro, a Republican and retired teacher, told him, "She doesn’t follow everything I believe in. But No. 1, she’s local. No. 2, she’s a woman." Still, "Lake’s hard right turn into politics surprised some of her Scott County friends and acquaintances."

Lake was a broadcast journalist for most of her adult life, starting out in the Quad Cities area of Iowa and Illinois, which includes Scott County. From 1994 until last year, she was at KSAZ-TV in Phoenix. "Arizona voting records show she registered as an independent, and later as a Democrat in 2008," Ridolfi reports. "She supported Obama in his first run against Arizona Sen. John McCain. In June 2021, she said America’s long war in Afghanistan motivated her move to the GOP."

Ridolfi quotes at length from C-SPAN's recording of Lake at July 22 rally, including: “This generation had so many things taken from them. They didn’t get prom. They didn’t get to ask the girl to prom. Didn’t get first kiss. It didn’t have to happen this way. They know who’s with them and who’s against them. Fake news won’t even cover it. They just want to attack us. How many of you don’t watch the corrupt corporate news anymore?” Speaking of President Biden, she said, “Fake news wants us to believe that guy got 81 million votes.” The Washington Post looks at Lake's ideas for elections.

UPDATE, Aug. 2: Jon Allsop of Columbia Journalism Review does a deep dive into the Lake story: When she retired, she said, “I found myself reading news copy that I didn’t believe was fully truthful, or only told part of the story, and I began to fear that I was contributing to the fear and division in this country by continuing on in this profession. . . . Not everyone is dedicated to telling the truth, but thankfully many of you have figured that out. I promise you: if you hear it from my lips, it will be truthful.”

Supreme Court decision on football coach's post-game prayer is a game-changer, education-law expert says

This week's Supreme Court decision on a coach's post-game prayer is a game changer for public schools, says University of Dayton professor Charles J. Russo, an expert in education law.

The court has consistently ruled against school-sponsored prayer in public schools, and lower courts have mostly ruled that public-school employees can't openly pray at work even when students aren't involved. But on Monday the Supreme Court essentially affirmed employees' right to pray in the workplace. That could encourage more religious activities in public schools, Russo writes for The Conversation, a site for journalism by academic researchers:

"In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District – the Supreme Court’s first case directly addressing the question – the court ruled that a school board in Washington state violated a coach’s rights by not renewing his contract after he ignored district officials’ directive to stop kneeling in silent prayer on the field’s 50-yard line after games. He claimed that the board violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the Supreme Court’s majority agreed 6-3."

Coach Joe Kennedy said the board violated his rights to speak freely and to freely practice his religion. "The Ninth Circuit twice rejected these claims because it concluded that when he prayed, he did so as a public employee whose actions could have been viewed as having the board’s approval," Russo writes. "Moreover, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the school board that the district had a compelling interest to avoid violating the establishment clause. During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, though, it was clear that the majority of justices were sympathetic to Kennedy’s claims of religious discrimination and more concerned with his rights to religious freedom than the board’s concern about violating the establishment clause."

The case is important "because the court has now decided that public school employees can pray when supervising students," and it "largely repudiates the three major tests the court has long applied in cases involving religion," leaving legal precedent in such cases unclear, Russo writes.

The ruling "also helps close out a Supreme Court term when the current justices’ increasing interest in claims of religious discrimination was on full display, with another 'church-state' case decided in religious plaintiffs’ favor just last week," Russo writes. "And on June 24, 2022, the court overturned Roe v. Wade. The debate over abortion is often framed in terms of religion, even though the court’s holding focused on other constitutional grounds."

Though evangelical Christians call the case a win, Russo questions whether that's so: "The case brings to mind the saying to be careful what one wishes for, because one’s wishes may be granted. By leaving the door open to more individual prayer in schools, the court may also open a proverbial can of worms. Will supporters who rallied behind a Christian coach be as open-minded if, or when, other groups whose values differ from their own wish to display their beliefs in public?"

High court, in case from rural Maine areas without high schools, says states can't deny tuition aid to religious ones

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a Maine tuition program that does not allow public funds to go to religious schools," Robert Barnes reports for The Washington Post. "Under Maine’s program, jurisdictions in rural areas too sparsely populated to support secondary schools of their own can arrange to have nearby schools teach their school-age children, or the state will pay tuition to parents to send their kids to private schools. But those schools must be nonsectarian, meaning they cannot promote a faith or belief system or teach 'through the lens of this faith,' in the words of the state’s Department of Education."

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the program essentially discriminates against religion, in violation of the Constitution. States are not obliged to subsidize private schools, but if they do, they can't discriminate against religious schools, he wrote. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision continued the dismantling of the separation of church and state sought by the nation's founders, Barnes reports.

Maine's program affects a few thousand students, but the ruling "could have far greater implications as the more conservative court systematically adjusts the line between the Constitution’s protection of religious exercise and its prohibition of government endorsement of religion," Barnes writes.

The ruling "could fuel a renewed push for school choice programs in some of the 18 states that have so far not directed taxpayer money to private, religious education," Mark Sherman reports for The Associated Press. "The most immediate effect of the court’s ruling beyond Maine probably will be in nearby Vermont, which has a similar program."

Biden administration to scrap blocked 'conscience rule' that allows health care workers to refuse services

"The Biden administration is preparing to scrap a Trump-era rule that allows medical workers to refuse to provide services that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs," according to three people familiar with the matter, Alice Miranda Ollstein and Adam Cancryn report for Politico. "A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that the policy change is underway."

The move comes as many Republican-led states are seeking to limit access to abortion and gender-affirming medical care, and just after a leaked draft majority opinion would have the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

"The so-called conscience rule, unveiled in 2018 and finalized in 2019, was blocked by federal courts after dozens of states, cities and advocacy groups sued, and has never been implemented," Politico reports. "Had it gone forward, it would have allowed doctors, nurses, medical students, pharmacists and other health workers to refuse to provide abortions, contraception, gender-affirming care, HIV and STD services, vasectomies or any procedure to which they object."

The Office of Management and Budget is reviewing the proposed regulation, often the final step before one is unveiled to the public, Politico reports.

Trump-supporting evangelicals may face a reckoning; it's a divide that should be explored by rural journalists

Pastor Bob Rodgers of Louisville cursed those who oppose Trump
and "have stolen this election." (footage captured by WXIA-TV)

In the wake of the Capitol riot, some Christian leaders are calling on fellow American evangelicals to consider how their overwhelming support for President Trump may have helped fuel the insurrection. 

Ed Stetzer, head of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College in Illinois, told NPR's Rachel Martin that evangelicals "sold out their beliefs" and seem to have changed their moral stances to accommodate their support for Trump. 

"Part of this reckoning is: How did we get here? How were we so easily fooled by conspiracy theories?" Stetzer said. "We need to make clear who we are. And our allegiance is to King Jesus, not to what boasting political leader might come next." Evangelicals must ask themselves why they were drawn to a candidate whose life and practices are not aligned with Biblical beliefs, he said. 

According to research, respect for an authoritarian leader was the biggest indicator of support for Trump among voters. That resonates strongly with white evangelical Christians, many of whom view the world through an authoritarian religious lens. 

Many evangelicals acknowledge Trump has moral failings, but believe he was chosen to work God's will on Earth, by appointing conservative, anti-abortion judges, for example. "Images and references to being on the march for Jesus were common at the massive Jan. 6 rally — and later, riot — including among a segment of American Christianity that believes it has the power of prophecy," Michelle Boorstein reports for The Washington Post. "Some experts say charismatic, prophetic Christians who operate largely outside denominations make up U.S. religion’s fastest-growing subset. In recent decades, millions have been increasingly seeking out these prophets and apostles on YouTube channels, in books, group prayer calls, via regular group text chats and at conferences where breakout groups practice faith healing and raising people from the dead. And nothing has focused this disparate, independent group like Trump."

This brand of "neo-charismatic" Christianity is different from earlier ones because it's invested so heavily in Trump, said Peter Montgomery of the progressive advocacy group People for the American Way, who has studied right-wing religious movements for decades. "Many of these prophetic leaders in 2015-16 said Trump was anointed by God, divinely assigned to save America and protect religious freedom," Montgomery told Boorstein. "And now with them believing that Trump is standing in the way of Christianity being criminalized in the United States, this is an existential moment."

To these Christians, who seek divine intervention, Trump's struggles in office are no deterrent to support. "The high-octane, emotional fight for Trump makes sense for these believers, who take the stories of Christian scripture literally and see daily life as a visceral struggle between God and the devil," Boorstein reports. "Spiritual warfare is constant. Signs and wonders are everywhere. So as time passes and Trump’s options disappear, God’s move to keep him in power will be even more spectacular — evidence even more likely to spark a religious awakening or revival." In other words, the worse things look for Trump, the mightier God will look when He keeps Trump in office. 

Some evangelical leaders who continue to support Trump are getting blowback, though. "A group of Louisville clergymen on Wednesday condemned a sermon by the pastor of the Evangel World Prayer Center in which he falsely claimed the 2020 presidential election was 'stolen' and placed a curse on those allegedly involved," Ayana Archie reports for the Courier Journal.

The Rev. Bob Rodgers had said: "Father, those that have lied, those that have stolen this election, those that have cheated, I place the curse of God upon them. I curse you with weakness in your body. I curse you with poverty. I curse you with the worst year you've ever had in the name of the Lord."

The Rev. Tim Findley of the Kingdom Fellowship Christian Life Center called the sermon "irresponsible" and "dangerous" in light of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Archie reports. Another Black evangelical pastor, the Rev. Mario Martin of Praise Nation Contemporary Church, said evangelical support of Trump advances "the spirit of white supremacy and white privilege through white prophecy," Archie reports. The Rev. Frank Smith Jr. of Christ's Church For Our Community said during the livestreamed presser: "I know there is much talk about the Christian right, but this is not Christian and this is not right."

UPDATE: David Brooks, a moderately conservative columnist for The New York Times, did some reporting and found a great divide about Trump "inside evangelical Christianity and within conservatism right now. As a conservative Christian friend of mine put it, there is strife within every family, within every congregation, and it may take generations to recover." Some excerpts: 

On the one hand, there are those who are doubling down on their Trump fanaticism and their delusion that a Biden presidency will destroy America.

“I rebuke the news in the name of Jesus. We ask that this false garbage come to an end,” the conservative pastor Tim Remington preached from the pulpit in Idaho on Sunday. “It’s the lies, communism, socialism.” . . . 

On the other hand, many Trump supporters have been shaken to the core by the sight of a sacrilegious mob blasting Christian pop music and chanting “Hang Mike Pence.” There have been defections and second thoughts. The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, who delivered a prayer at the Trump inaugural, told his congregation Sunday, “We must all repent, even the church needs to repent.”

"This divide probably exists in most American communities. Rural journalists should report on it," said Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues, publisher of The Rural Blog.

Brooks concludes with some advice of his own, such as not tolerating "cyberterrorism within a community or congregation." He adds:

Others have to be reminded of the basic rules for perceiving reality. They have to be reminded that all truth is God’s truth; that inquiry strengthens faith, that it is narcissistic self-idolatry to think you can create your own truth based on what you “feel.” There will probably have to be pastors and local leaders who model and admire evidence-based reasoning, wrestling with ideas.

On the left, leaders and organizations have arisen to champion open inquiry, to stand up to the cancel mobs. They have begun to shift the norms.

The problem on the right is vastly worse. But we have seen that unreason is a voracious beast. If it is not confronted, it devours not only your party, but also your nation and your church.

Religion mixes with politics as hundreds of rural churches pledge to 'vote with values' and Patriot Churches pop up

Pastor Ken Peters prays with attendees at a Patriot Church in Lenoir City, Tenn.

(Photo by Stacy Kranitz for the Washington Post)

Churches are barred from endorsing political candidates if they want to keep their non-profit status, but as usual the presidential election has nonetheless prompted commentary and advocacy from many faith leaders and spurred the creation of a new evangelical group. 

President Trump enjoys broad support from white evangelicals, whom he promised more political power; 81 percent voted for him in 2016, and the latest Pew Research Center polling shows that 78% support him now. But some evangelicals and other Christians oppose him on moral grounds.

Earlier this month, a group called Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden launched, saying the Democratic challenger's overall agenda is more biblically sound though they disagree with the Democratic Party's stance on abortion rights, Sarah Pulliam Bailey reports for The Washington Post.

More than 100 faith leaders from rural and small-town churches from various denominations across the U.S. recently signed a pledge to "vote with values of compassion, love, mercy and love for their neighbors. The pledge endorses no candidate or party, but some tenets seem to signal or greenlight Democratic support, including a commitment to help victims of racial injustice and an emphasis on "the importance of family unity and reunification." The signatories are part of Church World Service, a non-profit organization that aims to help communities worldwide through "just and sustainable responses to hunger, poverty, displacement and disaster." The Rev. John McCullough, president and CEO of CWS, is affiliated with Vote Common Good, an organization urging people of faith to oppose Trump on moral grounds. McCullough, and 1,600 other faith leaders endorsed Biden earlier this month.

Some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are reluctant to vote for Trump, citing his moral failings. In Arizona, the only toss-up state with a significant Mormon population, that could help swing its 11 electoral votes to Biden, Hank Stephenson reports for The New York Times.

However, some people of faith are embracing Trump more firmly, as new congregations affiliated with the Christian nationalist "Patriot Church" movement are starting to pop up, Bailey reports for the Post. The movement is nondenominational but decidedly straightforward about its conservative politics. For many at one Patriot Church in Tennessee, "The political boldness in worship is a breath of fresh air. They complain that social media restricts their free speech, and they fear government-mandated vaccines," Bailey reports. "Whether Trump wins or loses, religion experts believe these Americans are building powerful networks that are expected to endure long after Trump has left the White House."

Trump presidency highlights the 'complete fusion of evangelical Christianity and conservative politics'

President Trump rose to power partly because he promised evangelical Christians more political power, and such voters could be his best shot at re-election, Elizabeth Dias reports for The New York Times.

"The Trump era has revealed the complete fusion of evangelical Christianity and conservative politics, even as white evangelical Christianity continues to decline as a share of the national population," Dias reports. "There are some signs of fraying at the edges of the coalition, among some women and young people. If even a small fraction turns away from Mr. Trump, it could make the difference to his re-election. But even if he loses in November, mainstream evangelical Christianity has made plain its deepest impulses and exposed where the majority of its believers pledge allegiance."

One January 2016 speech at Dordt University, a Christian college in Sioux Center, Iowa, was widely covered because Trump said he "could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" without losing any voters, Dias reports. But some locals in the town of 7,500 keyed into another part of the speech: "Christianity will have power," Trump said. "If I’m there, you’re going to have plenty of power, you don’t need anybody else. You’re going to have somebody representing you very, very well. Remember that."

Though only 11 percent of Republicans in Sioux County caucused for Trump nine days later, 81% did in November, matching the 81% of nationwide white evangelicals who voted for Trump nationwide.

White evangelicals could be "Trump's best chance at re-election," Dias reports, since he has trailed presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden by double digits in nationwide polls for a month. Though Trump's approval rating has gone down slightly among white evangelicals, 82% said they intend to vote for him in November, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in late June.

Plenty of pundits, researchers and journalists have speculated, investigated, or gathered data on why evangelicals support Trump, with theories ranging from the "purely transactional" promise of appointing more conservative judges and ending legal abortion to hatred of Hillary Clinton.

"But beneath all this, there is another explanation. One that is more raw and fundamental. Evangelicals did not support Trump in spite of who he is," Dias writes. "They supported him because of who he is, and because of who they are. He is their protector, the bully who is on their side, the one who offered safety amid their fears that their country as they know it, and their place in it, is changing, and changing quickly. White straight married couples with children who go to church regularly are no longer the American mainstream. An entire way of life, one in which their values were dominant, could be headed for extinction. And Trump offered to restore them to power, as though they have not been in power all along."

White evangelicals Dias interviewed expressed fears that Christianity—which they often equated with rural values—was under attack, and said they felt that city dwellers looked down on rural residents, and didn't understand their way of life. Trump, they said, recognized that fear and would fight for them.

"The one group of people that people felt like they could dis and mock and put down had become the Christian. Just the middle-class, middle-American Christians," said Lisa Burg of Orange City, Iowa. "That was the one group left that you could just totally put down and call deplorable. And he recognized that, You know what? Yeah, it’s OK that we have our set of values, too. I think people finally said, 'Yes, we finally have somebody that’s willing to say we’re not bad, we need to have a voice too.'"

Supreme Court lets states regulate church gatherings in pandemic; White House waters down CDC guidelines

Churches continue to serve as a legal and regulatory battleground during the pandemic as concerns over free speech and public health collide.

The Supreme Court ruledFriday that states still retain some power to regulate how many people are allowed to gather in churches during a pandemic, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court's liberal minority in a 5-4 vote, Adam Liptak reports for The New York Times.

South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, Calif., sued to block the state from enforcing restrictions on attendance at religious services, alleging that their freedom of speech was being violated. However, Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that churches were not being unfairly singled out since non-essential secular gatherings have also been restricted, Liptak reports.

"The court’s ruling was its first attempt to balance the public health crisis against the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom," Liptak reports. "And it expanded the Supreme Court’s engagement with the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, after rulings on voting in Wisconsin and prisons in Texas and Ohio."

Meanwhile, last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed language from its pandemic guidelines for faith communities that had encouraged them to limit or eschew singing since it can spread the coronavirus, Lena Sun and Josh Dawsey report for The Washington Post.

The guide was initially released on Friday, May 22, but it was altered over the weekend to exclude language about choirs, apparently because the White House had not approved it, Bill Chappell reports for NPR. An anonymous federal official told NPR that the CDC "posted the wrong version of the guidance" and that the one "currently up on the website is the version cleared by the White House."

"The altered guidance also deleted a reference to 'shared cups' among items, including hymnals and worship rugs, that should not be shared," Sun and Josh Dawsey report. "The updated guidelines also added language that said the guidance 'is not intended to infringe on rights protected by the First Amendment'."

Churches have been the source for multiple local outbreaks in rural areas. "There is probably no better way to aerosolize the virus than singing," Kevin Kavanagh told The Rural Blog. "Close contact, indoor closed quarters plus singing is a set-up for a disaster." Kavanagh is a retired physician in Somerset, Ky., and chair of Health Watch USA.

Kansas Supreme Court preserves governor's ban on large church services; Kentucky church defies similar ban

In an eleventh-hour move Saturday, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly's ban on gatherings of more than 10 people, including worship services, Jim McClean reports for NPR affiliate KCUR.

The Republican majority on the state Legislative Coordinating Council overturned the order on Tuesday, saying that social distancing is a good idea, but the order unconstitutionally violates personal freedom.

The high court was careful to note that it was not ruling on that issue, but how much power the legislature ceded to the governor during a state of emergency, and whether the LCC had overstepped its authority during an emergency, McLean reports.

The state Department of Health and Environment secretary told the LCC on Tuesday that three covid-19 clusters in Kansas had been traced to church gatherings, The Wichita Eagle reports. The same thing has happened in other states, including Kentucky.

Kentucky's governor, Democrat Andy Beshear, faced some pushback from Republicans on Easter weekend after enforcing his own ban on mass gatherings by having state police get license-plate numbers and have health departments ask church attendees to quarantine themselves for 14 days. "This is the only way we can make sure that your decisions doesn't kill someone else," he said Friday.

At Maryville Baptist Church in the Louisville suburb of Hillview, about 50 worshipers showed up on Sunday—two from pandemic hotbed New Jersey, on their way to Nashville reports WDRB-TV of Louisville. Many covered their license plates. Some in the community weren't happy about the service: a large bucket of nails had been strewn across the parking lot.

Troopers put notices on vehicle windshields saying they had to sign and obey a self-quarantine agreement or face "further enforcement measures." Several attendees told a reporter they would not
obey. Asked if the state would impose ankle monitors on them, Beshear said "It's not going to come to that," because their neighbors would "suggest that all of these folks need to stay home for 14 days."

Kansas Republicans ax Democratic governor's ban on meetings of more than 10 people, including worship services

"Easter looming, Kansas Republican leaders on Wednesday revoked Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s order limiting religious gatherings to 10 people as the state’s coronavirus death toll jumped 40 percent," Jonathan Shorman, Amy Leiker and Michael Stavola report for The Wichita Eagle. "House and Senate leaders . . . voted along party lines . . . as the number of reported covid-19 cases in the state climbed to more than 1,000 and the death count ticked up to 38."

The order, signed Tuesday, prohibited a wide range of public and private gatherings, including religious services, Bill Lucia reports for Route Fifty. During the LCC's debate on the matter, Kelly's chief counsel, Clay Britton, argued that the order put churches on the same legal footing as secular groups, and noted that pastors and choir members were exempt from the 10-person limit.

Lee Norman, secretary of the Department of Health and Environment, said three covid-19 clusters in Kansas have been traced to church gatherings. It has happened in other states too, including Georgia, Kentucky, and Washington. Retired Kentucky physician Kevin Kavanagh told The Rural Blog that church gatherings are particularly dangerous because singing aerosolizes the virus.

Kansas Republican lawmakers mostly admit social distancing is a good idea, but object to the order because they believe it violates personal freedoms. Attorney General Derek Schmidt, for example, issued a memo saying the order was likely unconstitutional and urged police not to enforce it. But in the same memo he also asked Kansans to follow the order anyway, the Eagle reports.