Lawyers and judges know it all too well: If parsed with proper eloquence, the intent of words and phrases can be twisted to one’s own purpose or made meaningless. It’s no secret that particular judicial interpreters (judges/justices) are championed by special interest groups and then appointed by politicians in anticipation of how eloquently the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights will be argued in support of a desired position. To that end, a state court in Texas or even the Supreme Court of the United States may soon be called upon to exercise their interpretive powers.
According to the Texas Board of Education, it seems the First Amendment’s “freedom of religion” phrase should not be understood as meaning the same as “freedom from religion.” So, while the First Amendment does allow Texans the freedom of whatever religion they wish to practice, it apparently does not protect them from whatever religion the state might wish to impose. Will the courts agree? Are the desired judges in place?
The Texas Board of Education’s proposal won’t force cash-strapped public-school systems to insert Christian concepts into their curriculums, but schools that do comply will be rewarded with supplemental funding. That’s right, participation will be completely voluntary, but if a school wants to receive the needed funding, it better come to Jesus.
Hey, there’s no need to fear. The Christian based foray shouldn’t be seen as an attempt to lure little children into their fold. No, it’s not that at all; it’s really just meant to be an educational tool to familiarize young minds with Biblical phraseology:
“It is said that there are close to 300 common-day phrases that actually come from the Bible,” said Mary Castle, director of government relations for Texas Values, a right-leaning advocacy group. “So students will benefit from being able to understand a lot of these references that are in literature and have a way to be able to comprehend them.”
Obviously then, the completely voluntary compliance has nothing to do with indoctrination; it’s all about etymology. Yeah, for sure, but couldn’t the laudable goal of understanding also be said of exposure to expressions from the Tanakh, the Quran, Dharma, astrology, or even witchcraft? If the intent is simply to familiarize children with phrases that might later be encountered in scholastic pursuits, why limit exposure to Christianity?
Be that as it may, it will be interesting to see which Biblical phrases (verses) are deemed helpful to a child’s developmental comprehension. Will the chosen common-day phrases be confined to pat-on-the-back good Christian concepts (like, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” – Mathew 22:39), or will they also include some less palatable Biblical phrases (such as, “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” – Psalm 137:9)?
And will the young children in compliant schools be shown the common Biblical phrases that opportunistic Christians have seized upon to justify slavery (Genesis 9:18-27) or even genocide (1 Samuel 15:3)? Will their beneficial understanding be limited to the merciful God who has prepared a blissful and eternal life in Heaven for those who are fortunate enough to be born in the land of the faithful, or will they also learn how to comprehend the merciless God who has created a Hell of eternal suffering for those guilty of nothing more than being born into non-Christian cultures?
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is a strong supporter of the Board’s proposal to teach Christian concepts in public schools. Abbott is an even stronger advocate of unrestricted Second Amendment rights. Rather than focusing his evangelical attention on young school children, might not the virtuous Governor’s Christian energy be better spent on a “coming-to-Jesus” campaign with the NRA, the gun-makers, and the gun-clutchers that so conveniently support him? If they were to become familiar with (and take to heart) some of the common-day phrases attributed to Jesus, perhaps some meaningful gun regulation could be enacted, and another “Uvalde” avoided. However, should it happen that the Governor finds it unproductive to familiarize his adult Christian gun supporters with common-day Christian phrases, then sticking it to the kids might indeed be a good fallback approach: The little ones can be taught some comforting Christian phrases to insert in prayer while huddling under their desks.
Gov. Abbott and Texas aren’t alone in trying to replace secular neutrality with Christian ideology. Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters has mandated the inclusion of Bible studies for grades 5 through 12 in all public schools. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed legislation that will require the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in all public classrooms from kindergarten all the way to state-funded universities. Over the past two years, at least 19 states have considered legislation to back Christian initiatives in public schools.
Why the recent push? A couple of current motivators present themselves: fear and opportunity.
While defined as a secular democracy, the United States has long been a Christian stronghold. From the country’s inception, Christianity has held an ascendant position. It’s always been the most popular and influential “kid on the block.” Now, however, its popularity is slipping. In 1972’s General Social Survey, 90% of the U.S. respondents identified as Christian, while only 5% were religiously unaffiliated. By 2022, the unaffiliated had grown to 29%. People seem to be losing interest. Church pews have become less crowded on Sundays and thousands of churches host real-estate signs. Christianity is visibly losing its long-held position of preeminence; Church adherents understandably fear the loss of prestige, power, and popularity.
As a 2016 presidential candidate, Donald Trump picked up on that fear and made Christians a promise:
“Christianity will have power,” he 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.”
Trump provides the opportunity; he is the means through which Christians hope to regain lost power and relevancy. He’s promised to make them feel strong and popular again. Under Trump’s guidance, initiatives like those in Texas and Oklahoma will flourish. Christian ideology will be publicly manifested in schools and governmental settings. Its tenets will be displayed everywhere and a resurgence in popularity must surely follow.
But there’s a catch to the opportunity: Donald Trump’s persona is antithetical to proclaimed Christian values. He’s shown himself to be an unapologetic lying, greedy, racist, misogynistic, and philandering adulterer. There’s no way that good Christians could condone providing him their support and seeking his favor. Or, maybe there could be a way: if Donald Trump was chosen by God, then faithful Christians could indeed support him. And so, he was! Opportunity knocked (twice), and Evangelical leaders opened the door to a president chosen by God. Lance Wallnau and Jerry Falwell Jr. are just two of the prominent leaders (there are others) who have declared the Lord’s handiwork in Donald Trump’s successful campaign. Trump, as God’s exemplar, will make Christians feel powerful and popular again. Therefore, there’s no need for Christian apprehension in regards to his dubious character; they can be proud and confident in their support of a president who has been chosen by God.
But actually chosen by God? Do they really believe it? In spite of the distinguished declarations of Trump’s anointment, many Evangelical congregants remain skeptical of Trump’s spiritual bona fides. Although more than 80% of Evangelicals voted for Trump, only 49% attested to a belief in his appointment by God (and attesting to a belief doesn’t necessarily confirm having a belief). So, less than half of Trump’s most fervent supporters actually believe the assertion that he was chosen by God. They hear and like his promise, but don’t quite see God’s handiwork in Trump’s glorification. It seems that “Chosen by God” would be nice, but it’s not really required; the majority of good Christians just need to know that Trump will restore their power.
Is the desire for prestige, power, and popularity even necessary? As long as the nation remains secular, Christians (as well as non-Christians), are completely free to observe and worship as they desire. But it’s not freedom of religion that Christians seek; it’s the power to impose their religion on others. The imposition runs counter to the nation’s founding principle of secularism. The power that Donald Trump understands and offers is the power of domination. He and his appointees may indeed be able to deliver on a promise to impose at least an appearance of Christian domination, but it will be superficial and likely counterproductive. Forcing Christianity’s presence upon others may restore a semblance of power, but it won’t restore its popularity. It’s more apt to have the opposite effect; imposition will breed resentment and a further turning away from Christianity. When the party’s over, there will be more empty pews.