Texas State Board of Education signals support for Bible-infused curriculum

Jaden Edison,

 Texas Tribune
November 20, 2024 

Reading the Bible (Shutterstock)

A majority of the Texas State Board of Education signaled their support Tuesday for a state-authored curriculum under intense scrutiny in recent months for its heavy inclusion of biblical teachings.

Ahead of an official vote expected to happen Friday, eight of the 15 board members gave their preliminary approval to Bluebonnet Learning, the elementary school curriculum proposed by the Texas Education Agency earlier this year.

The state will have until late Wednesday to submit revisions in response to concerns raised by board members and the general public before the official vote takes place Friday. Board members reserve the right to change their votes.

The curriculum was designed with a cross-disciplinary approach that uses reading and language arts lessons to advance or cement concepts in other disciplines, such as history and social studies. Critics, which included religious studies experts, argue the curriculum’s lessons allude to Christianity more than any other religion, which they say could lead to the bullying and isolation of non-Christian students, undermine church-state separation and grant the state far-reaching control over how children learn about religion. They also questioned the accuracy of some lessons.

The curriculum’s defenders say that references to Christianity will provide students with a better understanding of the country’s history.

Texas school districts have the freedom to choose their own lesson plans. If the state-authored curriculum receives approval this week, the choice to adopt the materials will remain with districts. But the state will offer an incentive of $60 per student to districts that choose to adopt the lessons, which could appeal to some as schools struggle financially after several years without a significant raise in state funding.


Three Republicans — Evelyn Brooks, Patricia Hardy and Pam Little — joined the board’s four Democrats in opposition to the materials.

Leslie Recine — a Republican whom Gov. Greg Abbott appointed to temporarily fill the State Board of Education’s District 13 seat vacated by former member Aicha Davis, a Democrat who ran successfully for a Texas House seat earlier this year — voted for the curriculum. Abbott handpicked Recine, potentially a deciding vote on the materials, to fill the seat through the end of the year days before the general election, bypassing Democrat Tiffany Clark. A majority of District 13 residents voted this election for Clark to represent them on the board next year. She ran unopposed.

Board members who signaled their support for the curriculum said they believed the materials would help students improve their reading and understanding of the world. Members also said politics in no way influenced their vote and that they supported the materials because they believed it would best serve Texas children.


“In my view, these stories are on the education side and are establishing cultural literacy,” Houston Republican Will Hickman said. “And there's religious concepts like the Good Samaritan and the Golden Rule and Moses that all students should be exposed to.”

The proposed curriculum prompts teachers to relay the story of The Good Samaritan — a parable about loving everyone, including your enemies — to kindergarteners as an example of what it means to follow the Golden Rule. The story comes from the Bible, the lesson explains, and “was told by a man named Jesus” as part of his Sermon on the Mount, which included the phrase, “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” Many other religions have their own version of the Golden Rule.

Brooks, one of the Republicans who opposed the materials Tuesday, said the Texas Education Agency is not a textbook publishing company and that treating it like such has created an uneven playing field for companies in the textbook industry. Brooks also said she has yet to see evidence showing the curriculum would improve student learning.


Hardy, a Republican who also opposed the materials, said she did so without regard for the religious references. She expressed concern about the curriculum’s age appropriateness and her belief that it does not align with state standards on reading and other subjects.

Meanwhile, some of the Democrats who voted against the curriculum said they worried the materials would inappropriately force Christianity on public schoolchildren. Others cited concerns about Texas violating the Establishment Clause, which prohibits states from endorsing a particular religion.

“If this is the standard for students in Texas, then it needs to be exactly that,” said Staci Childs, a Houston Democrat. “It needs to be high quality, and it needs to be the standard, free of any establishment clause issues, free of any lies, and it needs to be accurate.”




More than 100 Texans signed up Monday to speak for and against the state-authored curriculum.

Courtnie Bagley, education director for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank that helped develop the curriculum, told board members that the Texas Education Agency has made every effort to respond to concerns from the public. She said rejecting the lessons would give other materials not owned by the state an unfair advantage.

“It would create a double standard, as Bluebonnet Learning has been held to a different and more stringent review process than other materials under consideration,” Bagley said.

Opponents argued that revisions did not go far enough, and some questioned whether the state’s intentions with crafting a curriculum that leans heavily on Christianity are political.

“I am a Christian, and I do believe that religion is a part of our culture, but our nation does not have a religion. We're unique in that,” said Mary Lowe, co-founder of Families Engaged for an Effective Education. “So I do not think that our school districts should imply or try to overtly impress to young impressionable children that the state does have a state religion.”

Education officials say references to Christianity will provide students with a better understanding of the country’s history, while other supporters have stated their belief that the use of religious references does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause. Legal experts note that recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority have eroded decades of precedent and made it unclear what state actions constitute a violation of the establishment clause.

State leaders also say the materials cover a broad range of faiths and only make references to religion when appropriate. Education Commissioner Mike Morath has said the materials are based on extensive cognitive science research and will help improve student outcomes. Of 10 people appointed to an advisory panel by the Texas Education Agency to ensure the materials are accurate, age-appropriate and free from bias, at least half of the members have a history of faith-based advocacy.

The Texas Tribune recently reported how parents, historians and educators have criticized the ways the materials address America’s history of racism, slavery and civil rights. In public input submitted in response to the curriculum and in interviews with the Tribune, they have said the materials strip key historical figures of their complexities and flaws while omitting certain context they say would offer children a more accurate understanding of the country’s past and present. Board member Rebecca Bell-Metereau, a San Marcos Democrat, and other Texans referenced the Tribune’s reporting during public testimony on Monday.

In response to those concerns, the Texas Education Agency has said the lessons will provide students with “a strong foundation” to understand more complex concepts as they reach later grades. State officials have also said those materials are written in an age-appropriate manner.

Disclosure: Texas Public Policy Foundation has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Texas offers Starr County ranch to Trump for mass deportation plans

Alejandro Serrano, 

Texas Tribune
November 20, 2024 

Donald Trump reacts as a scoreboard in the background displays "Trump 45" and "Trump 47", referring to Trump as the nation's 45th president and his bid to become the 47th president, during a rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S. October 22, 2024. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

The Texas General Land Office is offering President-elect Donald Trump  a 1,400-acre Starr County ranch as a site to build detention centers for his promised mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, according to a letter the office sent him Tuesday.

Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham said in the Tuesday letter that her office is “fully prepared” to enter an agreement with any federal agencies involved in deporting individuals from the country “to allow a facility to be built for the processing, detention, and coordination of the largest deportation of violent criminals in the nation’s history.”

The state recently bought the land along the U.S.-Mexico border in the Rio Grande Valley and announced plans to build a border wall on it. The previous owner had not let the state construct a wall there and had “actively blocked law enforcement from accessing the property,” according to the letter the GLO sent Trump.

A Trump campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment.

A cornerstone of Trump’s campaign was his pledge to clamp down on immigration by returning policies from his first term and deporting undocumented people en masse on a scale the country has not experienced in decades. Former aides — including some who are set to rejoin him — have described incorporating staging areas near the border to detain and deport people.

In an interview with Fox News posted Tuesday, Buckingham said she was “100% on board with the Trump administration's pledge to get these criminals out of our country.”

Buckingham had previously said she approved an easement within 24 hours of acquiring the Starr County land to let the Texas Facilities Commission, which is overseeing the state’s border wall construction, to begin building a wall. In the Fox interview, she said that move was followed by “brainstorming” with her team.

“We figured, hey, the Trump administration probably needs some deportation facilities because we've got a lot of these violent criminals that we need to round up and get the heck out of our country,” Buckingham said. She noted the land is mostly flat, “easy to build on,” accessible to international airports and near the Rio Grande.

“We're happy to make this offer and hope they take us up on it,” she added.

Trump’s vow to carry out mass deportations is certain to encounter logistical and legal challenges, like the ones that stifled promises from his first campaign once he assumed office.

However, Trump’s Cabinet picks indicate he is moving ahead in trying to carry out the deportations. He has selected Stephen Miller, an architect of the previous Trump administration’s border and immigration policy, to return as a top aide and has named Tom Homan, a former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to be his “border czar.”

And Texas is poised to try to help him implement the policies. After Trump left office in 2021, Gov. Greg Abbott launched an unprecedented border enforcement operation that included building a military base in Eagle Pass and the deployment of thousands of Department of Public Safety troopers and state National Guard troops to the border.

CNN reported Saturday that Texas’ “border czar” — Michael Banks, who serves as a special adviser to Abbott — has been a part of behind-the-scenes discussions with Trump’s team about immigration initiatives.

Disclosure: The Texas General Land Office has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2024/11/19/texas-border-starr-county-ranch-trump-deportation/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Hundreds of 19th-century skulls collected in the name of medical science tell a story

The Conversation
November 18, 2024

Human Skull (AFP)

When I started my research on the Samuel George Morton Cranial Collection, a librarian leaned over my laptop one day to share some lore. “Legend has it,” she said, “John James Audubon really collected the skulls Morton claimed as his own.” Her voice was lowered so as not to disturb the other scholars in the hushed archive.

As my work progressed, I uncovered no evidence to substantiate her whispered claim. Audubon had collected human skulls, several of which he then passed on to Morton. But birds and ornithology remained Audubon’s passion.

Nevertheless, the librarian’s offhanded comment has proven useful – a touchstone of sorts that continues to remind me of the controversy and confusion long surrounding the Morton Collection.

Morton was a physician and naturalist who lived in Philadelphia from 1799 until the end of his life in 1851. A lecture he delivered to aspiring doctors at the Philadelphia Association for Medical Instruction outlined the reasons for his cranial compulsion:
“I commenced the study of Ethnology in 1830; in which year, having occasion to deliver an introductory lecture on Anatomy, it occurred to me to illustrate the difference in the form of the skull as seen in the five great races of men … When I sought the materials for my proposed lecture, I found to my surprise that they could be neither bought nor borrowed.”

He would go on to acquire almost 1,000 human skulls.

Morton used these skulls to advance an understanding of racial differences as natural, easily categorizable and able to be ranked. Big-brained “Caucasians,” he argued in the 1839 publication “Crania Americana,” were far superior to small-skulled American Indians and even smaller-skulled Black Africans. Many subsequent scholars have since thoroughly debunked his ideas.

Certainly, condemnation of Morton as a scientific racist is warranted. But I find this take represents the man as a caricature, his conclusions as foregone. It provides little insight into his life and the complicated, interesting times in which he lived, as I detail in my book “Becoming Object: The Sociopolitics of the Samuel George Morton Cranial Collection.”

My research demonstrates that studies of skulls and diseases undertaken by Morton and his medical and scientific colleagues contributed to an understanding of U.S. citizenship that valued whiteness, Christianity and heroic masculinity defined by violence. It is an exclusionary idea of what it means to be American that persists today.

Yet, at the same time, the collection is an unintended testament to the diversity of the U.S. population during a tumultuous moment in the nation’s history.


Samuel Morton wasn’t a lone voice on the fringe of medicine. 'Memoir of the life and scientific labors of Samuel George Morton' by Henry S. Patterson, CC BY

Men of science and medicine

As a bioarchaeologist who has studied the Morton Collection for many years, I have sought to better understand the social, political and ideological circumstances that led to its creation. From my work – analyzing archival sources including letters, laws, maps and medical treatises, as well as the skulls themselves – I’ve learned that, over a lifetime, Morton fostered a professional network that had far-reaching tentacles.

He had plenty of help amassing the collection of skulls that bears his name.

The physician connected with medical colleagues – many of whom, like him, received degrees from the University of Pennsylvania – gentleman planters, enslavers, naturalists, amateur paleontologists, foreign diplomats and military officers. Occupational differences aside, they were mostly white, Christian men of some financial means.

Their interactions took place during a pivotal moment in American history, the interlude between the nation’s revolutionary consolidation and its violent civil unraveling.

Throughout this stretch of time, Morton and his colleagues catalyzed biomedical interventions and scientific standards to more effectively treat patients. They set in motion public health initiatives during epidemics. They established hospitals and medical schools. And they did so in the service of the nation.

Not all lives were seen as worthy of these men’s care, however. Men of science and medicine may have fostered life for many, but they also let others die. In “Becoming Object,” I track how they represented certain populations as biologically inferior; diseases were tied to nonwhite people, female anatomy was pathologized, and poverty was presumed inherited.

From person to specimen

Such representations made it easier for Morton and his colleagues to regulate these groups’ bodies, rationalize their deaths and collect their skulls with casual cruelty from almshouse dissecting tables, looted cemeteries and body-strewn battlefields. That is, a sizable portion of the skulls in Morton’s collections were not culled from ancient graves but belonged to those of the recently alive.

It is no coincidence that Morton began his scientific research in earnest the same year Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Men of science and medicine benefited from the expansionist policies, violent martial conflicts and Native displacement that underpinned Manifest Destiny.


A drawing from Morton’s book of the skull of a Seminole man killed by American troops. A bullet hole is visible on the left side of the man’s head. 'Crania Americana' by Samuel George Morton, CC BY

The collection reveals these acts of nation-building as necropolitical strategies – techniques used by sovereign powers to destroy or erase certain, often already vulnerable, populations from the national consciousness. These skulls attest to precarious existences, untimely deaths and trauma experienced from cradle to beyond the grave.

In the specific case of Native Americans, skeletal analysis testifies to the violent effects of U.S. military campaigns and forced removal. Native skulls that Morton labeled “warriors” have evidence of unhealed fractures and gunshot wounds. Children’s skulls bear the marks of compromised health; such pathology and their young ages at death are evidence of long-standing malnutrition, poverty and deprivation or stress.


To effectively transform subjects into objects – human beings into specimens – collected crania were ensconced in the institutional spaces of medical school lecture halls and museum storage cabinets.

There, Morton first numbered them sequentially. These numbers along with information about race, sex, age, “idiocy” or “criminality,” cranial capacity and provenance were inked on skulls and written in catalogs. Very rarely was the person’s name recorded. If used as teaching tools, Morton drilled holes to hang the skulls for display and notated them with the names of skeletal elements and features.

As dehumanizing as this process was, the Morton Collection does contain evidence of resilience and heterogeneous lives. There are traces of people with mixed-race backgrounds such as Black Indians. Several people may have also bent gender to navigate dire conditions or in keeping with social norms, such as native Beloved Women, who were active in warfare and political life.



In contrast to those whose skulls ended up in his collection, Samuel Morton’s own grave was memorialized with a monument. Pamela L. Geller

What these bones mean today

As anthropologists now recognize, it is through the repatriation of the remains of the people in the Morton Collection to their descendants, among other types of reparations, that current practitioners may begin to atone for the sins of intellectual forebears. Indeed, all institutions housing legacy collections must contend with this issue.

There are other, valuable lessons – about diversity and suffering – that the Morton Collection has to impart in today’s interesting times.

The collection demonstrates that the American body politic has always been a diverse one, despite efforts of erasure by men like Morton and his colleagues. Piecing together the stories of past, disenfranchised lives – and acknowledging the silences that have made it difficult to flesh them out – counters past white nationalism and xenophobia and their current resurgence.

The collection, I believe, also urges the repudiation of violence, casual cruelty and opportunism as admirable attributes of masculinity. Valorizing men who embody these qualities has never served America well. Particularly in the mid-1800s, when Morton amassed skulls, it led to a nation divided and hardened to suffering, an unfathomable death count and the increasing fragility of democracy.

Pamela L. Geller, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Miami

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

For these Hindu Americans, a pivot from the Democratic Party was long overdue

(RNS) — In the Trump coalition, they see a burgeoning multiracial religious right that has ample space for Hindu Americans.

Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump listens as Vivek Ramaswamy speaks during a campaign rally at Thomas & Mack Center, Thursday, Oct. 24, 2024, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)

Richa Karmarkar
November 12, 2024

(RNS) — Days after Donald Trump’s sweeping presidential win, reactions around the country ranged from surprise and sadness to, in Texan Burt Thakur’s case, relief.

“What a moment,” he told RNS. “The biggest comeback in political history, I would say, for any world leader in modern times.”

A Republican congressional hopeful who ran in Frisco, Texas, under the slogan “one nation under God, not one nation under government,” Thakur — a former Navy sailor, nuclear power plant worker and immigrant from India — has much in common with the average faith-based Trump voter. Though Thakur lost his March primary in northeast Texas, “arguably the most evangelical part” of the state, Thakur said he had “never felt more welcomed” than when he campaigned as a conservative in his district

For so long, says Thakur, Hindu Americans had to wait their turn to enter the political space as anything other than a Democrat. But now, with openly Hindu Republican figures like Vivek Ramaswamy, Tulsi Gabbard and even Usha Chilukuri Vance, the wife of Vice President-elect JD Vance, Thakur sees a burgeoning multiracial religious right that has ample space for Hindu Americans.

“If we want to build a bridge, if we want the Vivek Ramaswamys of the world to get into office, if we want our voice heard, these groups are waiting for us,” said Thakur, who added he has often been “one of the only brown faces in the room” at Republican-led events. “We just have to show up.”

Political observers have noted the uptick in Trump-supporting Americans from various ethnic and immigrant backgrounds, especially Latinos and Asians, as the marker of a changing America. The Democratic Party has too often relied on the support of Indian Americans, says author Avatans Kumar, who, like many in his immigrant cohort, initially leaned to the left.

“Indians, Hindus specifically, are very deeply religious people,” said Kumar, who moved to Chicago for a Ph.D. in linguistics in 1994. “And progressivism is not alien to us. It comes to us because we are Hindus — very progressive, liberal minded. But there’s a limit to it. So I think we may have, you know, broke that limit for many of us.”

Notions of DEI, Critical Race Theory and affirmative action led Kumar to question the state of the meritocracy he once valued in his chosen country. For him, the breaking point came, as it did for many Hindus, in 2023 with a senate bill in California. Bill 403, supported by many Democrats, would have codified caste as a protected category under existing anti-discrimination laws. Governor Gavin Newsom ultimately vetoed the bill after fierce opposition from prominent Hindu advocates who argued it misrepresented the Hindu faith as intrinsically caste-based.

RELATED: As caste bill meets defeat, Hindu Americans on both sides make their voices heard

Trump’s “America First” views, where ideology is more important than identity, greatly appealed to Kumar.

“I don’t think identity should be a big factor,” he said. “You are who you are, and our dharma tells us to be loyal to our nation, the country where we live. You know, we made this country home, and we will be very loyal. But also, India is our spiritual homeland, that’s the connection we have.”

In a pre-election 2020 survey, 72% of registered Indian American voters said they planned to support Biden, a share that fell to 61% percent for Kamala Harris in the month before the 2024 election — while Trump support went from 22% to 32%, according to the Indian American Attitudes Survey conducted before both elections.

President Joe Biden’s administration of “mostly activist ideologues,” said Kumar, did little to support a diplomatic relationship with India. In contrast with liberals’ criticism of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s rule, and the occasionally violent Hindu nationalism of his Bharatiya Janata Party, Trump has instead publicly shown his great appreciation and admiration for the leader of the world’s largest democracy.

“We will also protect Hindu Americans against the anti-religion agenda of the radical left,” posted Trump on Diwali. “Under my administration, we will also strengthen our great partnership with India and my good friend, Prime Minister Modi.”

The majority of Indian Americans either approve of or have no opinion on Modi’s performance as prime minister, and most value a strong partnership between India and the U.S., according to a 2023 survey by Pew Research Center.

But Trump’s foreign policy is only a small piece of the puzzle, according to D.C. native Akshar Patel. Increased inflation and pathways to legal immigration, the latter of which is especially relevant to the majority-immigrant population with a decadeslong backlog for citizenship, were the issues strong enough to sway otherwise progressive-minded Hindus like himself into a Trump vote.

“Diversity, tolerance, pluralism, things like that: those are Hindu ideals,” said Patel, who in 2018 founded the independent news outlet The Emissary, which discusses Indian and American history and politics. “On the flip side, though, ideas around God, family and natural patriotism, you could say those are also Hindu values.”

But Patel warns against characterizing the multi-religious coalition as a “pan-Republican phenomenon,” instead calling it a distinctly “Trumpian” one. He noted the backlash over Harmeet Dhillon, a practicing Sikh, reciting a prayer to Waheguru (the Sikh name for God) at the Republican National Convention, with some calling it “blasphemous” and “anti-Christian.”

“I think that is a real part of the Republican Party, which I guess Hindus need to be cognizant of, and keep one eyebrow up,” Patel said.

Srilekha Reddy Palle, a board member of the nonpartisan American Hindu Coalition, has been a vocal supporter of Trump throughout the 2024 campaign season. Some of her colleagues were “instrumental,” she said, in getting Trump to mention the violence against Hindus in Bangladesh in his October X post. “Kamala and Joe have ignored Hindus across the world and in America,” added the post.

But her support for Trump goes beyond “superficial” identity-based lines, says Palle, who ran for county supervisor in her home state of Virginia in 2019. “I just want us to be at a point where anyone can stand on the stage,” she said, noting how in local elections in her state candidates still feel a need to emphasize their Christian faith.

“That kind of thing should go away from America,” she added. “That’s what I call religious freedom. Religious tolerance alone is not religious freedom. It just means that you practice whatever you want, but you should be agnostic when it comes to running, when you come into the public eye.”

On either side of the American political spectrum, many Hindus like Reddy feel pride in the influx of Indians in lawmaking positions, like the six Congress members elected just this cycle, or Hindus like Ramaswamy, Gabbard and Kash Patel — who are all expected to have a role in Trump’s government.

The goal for AHC, she says, is to move the community away from opening wallets and photo ops, and towards getting more like-minded people into leadership positions.

For Indu Viswanathan, director of education for the Hindu University of America, “there’s nothing more Hindu than viewpoint diversity,” or the ability to empathize and understand other perspectives, including those of her more right-leaning colleagues. The former public school teacher says too many in the Indian American community, among the wealthiest and most educated ethnic group in the nation, live in their enclaves and are not exposed to the reality of mainstream America.

“This is where the culture wars, and a lot of social justice has done us a disservice, because in the name of being inclusive, it’s actually created a lot of more isolating categorization of people,” she said. “It’s really easy to get fired up, and it’s really easy to feel like you’re drowning.”

But Viswanathan sees Trump, with his felony convictions, as “not at all aligned with dharmic values,” and is especially cautious of the alignments some Hindus are making with an increasingly nationalist form of Christianity in a nation that has historically misrepresented or even denigrated ritualistic forms of the religion.

“Your everyday American is actually really open minded,” she said. “So we don’t need to make ourselves fit in that way. We can actually be really authentic in our representations and expressions and understandings of the world. Don’t try to dilute or make your sort of experience of Hinduism digestible to others,” she said.

“The more diversity of expression that we see, not just in politicians, but in media and entertainment, in all of these different spaces, the richer our country is, the richer the representation of Hinduism is. And I think we’re all better off for it.”

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Hinduism Is Fascism

A Christian Zionist will be US new ambassador to Israel

(RNS) — Mike Huckabee’s theology about the end times may be unclear, but his views on today’s Israel aren’t.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee takes questions from the media, prior to laying a brick at a new housing complex in the West Bank settlement of Efrat, Aug. 1, 2018. President-elect Donald Trump plans to nominate Huckabee as ambassador to Israel. Trump said Tuesday that Huckabee is a staunch defender of Israel and his intended nomination comes as Trump has promised to align U.S. foreign policy more closely with Israel’s interests as it wages wars against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty, File)

Mark Silk
November 13, 2024
(RNS) — You’ve got to hand it to President-elect Donald Trump.

After cuddling up to Muslims and winning more of their votes than his Democratic rival a week ago, he’s thrown them under the bus with an alacrity remarkable even for him. In a dream come true for Israel’s annexationist right wing, he announced Tuesday (Nov. 12) that his ambassador to Israel will be former Arkansas Gov. and Baptist minister Mike Huckabee.

From the Israeli right: “He’s a great friend to Israel,” said Yishai Fleisher, spokesperson for the Jewish Community of Hebron, on the West Bank. “We’re thrilled to have him.”

From America’s Arab American community: crickets.

It should surprise no one that Trump would send a pro-Israel evangelical Christian to the Jewish state. At the ceremony marking the opening of the American Embassy in Jerusalem in 2018, the clergy speakers comprised one American rabbi and two prominent evangelical ministers: the Rev. Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, and the Rev. John Hagee, pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio and founder of Christians United for Israel.

Huckabee has connections to this crowd. He made an appearance at Hagee’s church in December 2007, when Huckabee was seeking the Republican presidential nomination. That year, Hagee was dealing with the controversy he had stirred up in the evangelical world with “In Defense of Israel,” a book that rejected what’s known as supersessionism, the idea that “Israel has been rejected and replaced by the church to carry out the work once entrusted to Israel,” as Hagee explained in the book.

But Hagee called this notion that “the Jewish people have ceased to be God’s people, and the church is now spiritual Israel” a “misconception … rooted in the theological anti-Semitism that began in the first century.” It was time, he wrote, “for Christians everywhere to recognize that the nation of Israel will never convert to Christianity.”

So much, evidently, for the widespread evangelical belief that come the end times, Jews will return to Israel and many will convert and be saved.


Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee prays for political leaders at an American Renewal Project pastor luncheon in Henderson, N.C., Sept. 24, 2024. (RNS photo/Yonat Shimron)

What Huckabee himself believes about Judaism is not so easy to determine. Reporters covering his impressive 2008 presidential run — which included a victory in the Iowa caucuses — were able to come up with a tape of just one of the innumerable sermons he recorded during his 12 years as a Baptist pastor. In a 2010 New Yorker piece, he hedged on the question of end times Jewish conversion.

In 2008, he did say that “there’s really no such thing as a Palestinian” and that the notion of a Palestinian state is used as a “political tool to try and force land away from Israel.” Visiting the West Bank seven years ago, he said, “There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria,” adding that “there’s no such thing as an occupation.”

He’s long been an advocate of a one-state solution (i.e., Israel) and, according to the AP, he recently said, “the title deed was given by God to Abraham and to his heirs.” That would be a reference to the 12th chapter of Genesis, where God says to Abraham, “Unto thy seed will I give this land.” Huckabee calls himself a Zionist.

“President-elect Trump has made an inspiring choice,” Hagee said in a statement from CUFI after Huckabee’s appointment was announced.

Speaking on Israeli Army Radio on Wednesday, Huckabee was asked whether Israeli annexation of the West Bank would be a possibility after Trump takes office in January. “Well, of course,” he answered. “I won’t make the policy, I will carry out the policy of the president.”

That policy is best characterized as Christian Zionist.

In Mike Huckabee, Israel will have a longtime friend and true believer as ambassador

(RNS)—The former Arkansas governor and pastor-turned-Fox News host has been a supporter of Israel since his first visit in the 1970s. He sees the growth of Israel as a sign that biblical prophecies are true.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee takes questions from the media, prior to laying a brick at a new housing complex in the West Bank settlement of Efrat, Aug. 1, 2018. President-elect Donald Trump plans to nominate Huckabee as ambassador to Israel. Trump said Tuesday that Huckabee is a staunch defender of Israel and his intended nomination comes as Trump has promised to align U.S. foreign policy more closely with Israel’s interests as it wages wars against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty, File)

Bob Smietana, Yonat Shimron, and Jack Jenkins
November 14, 2024

(RNS) — Mike Huckabee’s journey to becoming the U.S. ambassador to Israel began 50 years ago.

The former Arkansas governor, presidential candidate and Fox News host first visited Israel with a friend on a tour of the Middle East not long after graduating from high school. “This is a place I’d never been, but I felt at home,” Huckabee said in a podcast interview at the National Religious Broadcasters convention earlier this year, about his experience as a teen.

“I felt an overwhelming spiritual reality of understanding this is the land that God has given to the Jews,” he told Paul Lanier, board chair of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, for the “Nourish Your Biblical Roots” podcast.

Huckabee said he began hosting his own tours of Israel in the 1980s and has visited the country more than 100 times. He’s a longtime supporter of pro-Israel groups like IFCJ — a nonprofit that seeks to strengthen ties between Christians and Jews and does humanitarian work in Israel — and has helped raise money for the group.

Huckabee has also long articulated staunchly pro-Israel political views. As a candidate for president in 2008, Huckabee said he believed there is “no such thing as a Palestinian,” according to CNN. He argued that the very concept of Palestinian identity is “a political tool to try and force land away from Israel.”

When he ran for president again in 2015, he held a fundraiser in one of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law.

In his conversation with Lanier, Huckabee compared the origin of Israel to the founding of the United States, saying both were started by people who moved to a new land to find peace and security. He also said the growth of Israel since 1948 is like biblical prophecies come true.

“I’ve seen Scripture come to life,” he said. “The desert has bloomed before my eyes.”

If confirmed by the Senate, Huckabee may be the first political appointee — as opposed to interim career foreign service officers — to come to the U.S. Embassy in Israel from a group known as Christian Zionists, who back Israel for theological as well as geopolitical reasons. (The current U.S. ambassador is Jack Lew, an American Jew who served as secretary of the Treasury under Barack Obama.)



Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump talks with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee during a roundtable at the Drexelbrook Catering & Event Center, Oct. 29, 2024, in Drexel Hill, Pa. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

Many Christian Zionists are millenarianists — they view the creation of the modern state of Israel as a necessary precondition for the second coming of Jesus and the apocalyptic purification of the world in the end times. Israel, along with the occupied territories it captured in 1967, is considered given by God to the biblical patriarch Abraham, who is told in the Book of Genesis, “God will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.”

Huckabee’s own biblical approach to Israel shows up in his habit of referring to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” — a way of signaling a belief that the land has always belonged to the Jewish people.

That divine patrimony, believers say, should shape how nations, including the United States, treat Israel and how individual Christians should view the nation. Over the past 30 years, evangelicals, including Southern Baptists like Huckabee, but also growing groups of charismatic nondenominational Christians, have duly formed strong alliances with Israeli leaders and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular.

They give more to Israeli causes than Jewish Americans do and have formed strong support groups. With 5 million members, Christians United for Israel, led by San Antonio pastor John Hagee, is thought to be the largest pro-Israel nonprofit in the United States. In 2017, when then-President Donald Trump moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the move was applauded by Christian Zionist supporters, and Hagee spoke at the dedication of the new embassy.

RELATED: What evangelicals say they want from a second Trump term

Mordechai Inbari, a professor of religion at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, said Huckabee’s appointment as U.S. ambassador to Israel would be greeted “with open arms” by the Netanyahu government. “Huckabee belongs to the network of supporters of Netanyahu and his government among evangelicals and is considered to be a strong supporter of Israel,” said Inbari.

Huckabee was pressed by Israeli radio Wednesday (Nov. 13) on whether he believed the Trump administration would support annexation by Israel of the occupied territories, principally the West Bank, but also Gaza. He demurred but made it clear that he sees his job as following the decisions made by the president.

“There’s never been an American president,” he added, “that has been more helpful in securing an understanding of the sovereignty of Israel — from the moving of the embassy, recognition of the Golan Heights, and Jerusalem as the capital, no one has done more than president Trump and I fully expect that will continue,” Huckabee said.

Inbari, for one, didn’t think the new Trump administration would rush to see Israel annex the territories. Trump has shown a desire to expand the Mideast peace deal known as the Abraham Accords, inked in his first administration, to include Saudi Arabia. The accords, signed in 2020, normalized Israeli relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, and later Sudan and Morocco.

Israel and Saudi Arabia appeared close to a deal in 2023, but the negotiations were derailed by the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. Saudi Arabia now insists it will only normalize ties with Israel if there is a pathway for a Palestinian state, which the Israeli government currently rejects.

“I think Trump would want peace with Saudi Arabia rather than Israel annexing the West Bank,” said Inbari. “And so I don’t think that this is something that’s going to happen.”

Yael Eckstein, president of the IFCJ, who traveled to Israel with Huckabee earlier this year to deliver humanitarian aid there, said the former governor has the best interests of the United States and Israel at heart and she views his new role as ambassador as a good thing.

“I think it’s wonderful news, not just for Israel, but for America and the entire world,” she said. “Because I think the stronger Israel and America are in their bond and relationship, the stronger the entire world is.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee prays for political leaders at an American Renewal Project pastor luncheon in Henderson, N.C., Sept. 24, 2024. (RNS photo/Yonat Shimron)

Luke Moon, executive director of the Philos Project, a pro-Israel group, likewise called Huckabee a good choice. Moon cited Huckabee’s past support for Israel and the fact that as an evangelical, he’s not involved in the internal politics of the American Jewish community.

Moon also said that the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and the war in Gaza — and the campus protests in the U.S. against that war — likely played a role in the 2024 election.

Whether people were voting for Israel or they were opposed to pro-Palestinian protesters on college campuses, said Moon, “either way I’ll take it.”

Brent Leatherwood, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said he was encouraged that Huckabee was one of the first ambassadors to be named by Trump.

“That shows that Israel is top of mind for President-elect Trump,” he said. “I think that is a good thing.”

 

Are Israeli Soldiers’ Lives Really Worth More than Gaza Kids?

by Yves Engler / November 14th, 2024

Elizabeth May believes the memory of Jews killed in Europe eight decades ago is more important than living Palestinians. The Canadian Green leader’s Jewish supremacism is a stain on her legacy, the party and Canadian left.

Last week supporters of Maccabi Tel Aviv FC yelled racist slogans, ripped Palestinian flags, destroyed taxis and beat individuals before their team’s match in Amsterdam. The night before the game 10 Israelis were arrested and “local police and authorities considered calling off the Ajax v Maccabi Tel Aviv match because of violence the night before.” Anti-Zionist Dutch Jewish organization Erev Rav cancelled its commemoration of Kristallnacht — the night in which Nazi thugs attacked Jews as a prelude to the extermination of European Jewry — out of fear Maccabi hooligans would disrupt it. In March, Maccabi supporters beat a pro-Palestinian Arab man unconscious in Athens when their team played Olympiakos.

Multiple Maccabi supporters in Amsterdam have been fighting in Gaza and Lebanon. According to the Jerusalem Post, Mossad agents accompanied the Maccabi supporters to Amsterdam, likely to participate in framing the (expected) violence.

In response to Israeli claims that Amsterdam inhabitants beating a handful of football ultras was a “pogrom”, May posted to X, “On behalf of Canadian Greens I am horrified by anti-semitic attack on Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam. We condemn such hate. Ironically learned of it while attending event commemorating Kristallnacht horror of 86 years ago. Never Again.”

While she attends a Kristallnacht event promoting genocidal football hooligans, I couldn’t find any instance of May attending a rally or march over the past 13 months against Israel’s holocaust in Gaza (there have been weekly protests in the city she represents in parliament as well as regular marches in Ottawa).

However, on October 7, May attended an Ottawa event put on by Israel’s embassy and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs to promote Israel’s holocaust in Gaza and terror in Lebanon. Simultaneously she released an explicitly supremacist statement to be read at a commemorative event in Victoria for what May labeled “the worst act of senseless violence against Jews since the Shoah.” The statement called the violence perpetrated by Palestinian militants who broke free of the Gaza cage to attack a half dozen Israeli military bases as “horrific”, “savage” and “barbaric”. But May doesn’t employ those terms to describe Israel’s far worse crimes against an occupied population, labeling the horrors befalling Palestinians over the past year as “additional grief”. May concludes, “Every life is precious. All this pain and grief has taken its toll. We are all in this global human family traumatized by October 7 and its aftermath. But the bell that tolls the loudest is for those souls lost in the diabolical attacks of October 7.”

Why does the bell toll louder for the 313 Israeli soldiers killed that day, who enforced an illegal occupation of Palestinian land, than for innocent children in Gaza?

May has made explicitly philosemitic/Jewish supremacist statements before. In 2015, May responded to a Canadian Jewish News request to make her pitch to Canadian Jewish voters by saying “you have been the heart and soul and conscience of Canada on many issues for a very long time… I would urge you to look at the Green party’s policies and platform and see if you don’t see yourself there. If you don’t, let me know, I certainly would apologize if we are not meeting the aspirations of Canadians who have done so much for this country.”

Paradoxically, May’s Jewish supremacism is partly rooted in her Christianity. Her October 7 statement concludes with a Christian Zionist Psalm that mentions Israel three times. May studied to be a priest in an Anglican church with a long history of Zionism, as I detailed eight years ago. In an expression with Christian Zionist echoes, May praised the colonial Jewish National Fund for “the great work that’s done in making the desert bloom.” May’s 2013 comment erased the existence of the indigenous Palestinians and promoted an explicitly racist institution that has Judaized historically Arab areas and continues to discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel in its land use policies.

Christian Zionism, philosemitism and deference to power has led May to promote anti-Palestinian positions antithetical to Green members’ and party interests. In 2016 May threatened to resign as leader if the party didn’t organize a special convention immediately after members strongly backed a partial Boycott Divestment and Sanctions resolution in a pre-convention online poll, convention caucus and full convention vote. In response she forced the party to spend over $100,000 to organize a special convention five months later in a bid to overturn a single resolution. As part of her stunningly undemocratic bid to reverse members’ BDS vote, May fired the sponsor of the resolution, Dmitri Lascaris, and two other shadow critics who defended the members vote.

While May expected the backers of the BDS resolution to give up in the face of her control of the party apparatus, Palestine supporters out organized May in the lead-up to the special convention. As such, May was forced into agreeing with a resolution that deepened the boycott call but withdrew the BDS formulation. But through her control of the party’s megaphone May spun a false narrative of the consensus resolution, claiming the party did not support BDS. In 2019 May told the Canadian Jewish News “We have nothing to do with BDS. We repealed it. We are not a party that condones BDS. We would never tolerate anybody in our party who violates our core values, who are anti-Semitic.”

On multiple occasions May has insinuated that pro-Palestinian members, notably Lascaris, were antisemitic and during the 2020 Green Party leadership race she smeared Lascaris. It was part of why Lascaris was barred from running (he ultimately overturned the ban).

As she worked to undermine anti-apartheid voices, May threw her weight behind the little known Annamie Paul, securing her victory in the leadership race. Deeply anti-Palestinian, Paul destroyed her leadership and severely damaged the Green Party by pushing racist positions during Israel’s 2021 slaughter in Gaza.

Even as Israel commits a holocaust in Gaza and wages incredible violence across the region the Green Party leader’s bell tolls loudest for the apartheid state. Based on the evidence, Elizabeth May seems to be an anti-Palestinian bigot.FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Yves Engler is the author of 12 books. His latest book is Stand on Guard for Whom?: A eople's History of the Canadian Military . Read other articles by Yves.

Judge blocks Louisiana law requiring Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools


On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John deGravelles issued an order giving an injunction to temporarily stop its enforcement setting the stage for a likely U.S. Supreme Court battle while the judicial proceedings play out, and further ordered Louisiana’s attorney general to inform the state’s schools. File photo by Michael Kleinfeld/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 12 (UPI) -- A federal judge on Tuesday blocked a Louisiana requiring the Bible's Ten Commandments to be displayed in the state's publicly-funded schools.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John deGravelles issued an order granting a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop its enforcement, setting the stage for a potential U.S. Supreme Court battle while the judicial proceedings play out.

He wrote that the law is "facially unconstitutional" and "in all applications" that will "irreparably harm."

Gov. Jeff Landry signed House Bill 71 into law after state lawmakers approved the measure, making Louisana the first state in the country to require the Ten Commandments be displayed in public elementary, high school and state-funded universities.

It required the biblical inscriptions to be displayed in "large, easily readable font" inside classrooms by the start of 2025.

In addition to blocking the law, deGravelles, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, further ordered Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill to "provide notice to all schools that the Act has been found unconstitutional."

Previously, Murrill had dismissed prior testimony by a professor of law, history and religious studies at Oregon's Willamette University who told the court America's Founding Father's were advocates of a separation of church and state and the law was not "at the core of the U.S. government and its founding."

"This law, I believe, is constitutional, and we've illustrated it in numerous ways that the law is constitutional. We've shown that in our briefs by creating a number of posters," Murrill had told reporters as she complained about the relevancy of that testimony.

Landry told parents against the law to "tell your child not to look at" the Ten Commandments, with Murrill agreeing.

"Again, you don't have to like the posters," Murrill said. "The point is you can make posters that comply with the Constitution."

The suit seeking to block the law was promoted by a broad coalition of parents of Jewish, Christian, Unitarian Universalist and nonreligious faiths with the American Civil Liberties Union and its Louisiana chapter, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

The group contends the law "substantially interferes with and burdens" a parent's First Amendment right to raise children with a religious doctrine of their own choosing.

The law, "sends the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments ... do not belong in their own school community and should refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state's religious preferences," according to the complaint.

Heather L. Weaver, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said Tuesday's ruling should "serve as a reality check for Louisiana lawmakers who want to use public schools to convert children to their preferred brand of Christianity."

"Public schools are not Sunday schools, and today's decision ensures that our clients' classrooms will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed," Louisiana is the first state to require the Ten Commandments in schools since a 1980 Supreme Court ruling struck down a similar law in Kentucky which blurred the line between the intended separation of church and state.

Meanwhile, other states like Texas and Tennessee have been actively considering similar laws. And a similar lawsuit in Oklahoma is ongoing.

The Louisiana law had the support of President-elect Donald Trump who said after it was initially passed, 

"I LOVE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS, AND MANY OTHER PLACES, FOR THAT MATTER. READ IT -- HOW CAN WE, AS A NATION, GO WRONG???" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform when the bill was signed into law.

"THIS MAY BE, IN FACT, THE FIRST MAJOR STEP IN THE REVIVAL OF RELIGION, WHICH IS DESPERATELY NEEDED, IN OUR COUNTRY."

What the history of blasphemy laws and the fight for religious freedom can teach us

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash
person holding book while standing on field

The Conversation

November 13, 2024


Some 79 countries around the world continue to enforce blasphemy laws. And in places such as Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, violation of these measures can result in a death penalty.

While the U.S. is not among those countries, it also has a long history of blasphemy laws. Many of the U.S. colonies established blasphemy laws, which became state laws. The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that blasphemy was a form of protected speech until 1952. Even then, it has not always been protected.

As a scholar of religious and political rhetoric, I believe the history of U.S. blasphemy laws reflects a complex fight for the freedom of religion and speech.
Early US blasphemy laws

U.S. colonies often developed legal protections for Christians to practice their religion. These safeguards often did not extend to non-Christians.

Maryland’s Toleration Act of 1649, for example, was the first Colonial act to refer to the “free exercise” of religion and was designed to protect Christians from religious persecution from state officials. It did not, however, extend that “free exercise” of religion to non-Christians, instead declaring that anyone who blasphemes against God by cursing him or denying the existence of Jesus can be punished by death or the forfeiture of their lands to the state.

In 1811, the U.S. witnessed one of its most infamous blasphemy trials, People v. Ruggles, at the New York Supreme Court. New York resident John Ruggles received a three-month prison sentence and a US$500 fine — about $12,000 in today’s money — for stating in public that “Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore.”

Chief Justice James Kent argued that people have freedom of religious opinion, but opinions that were malicious toward the majority stance of Christianity were an abuse of that right. He claimed similar attacks on other religions, such as Islam and Buddhism, would not be punishable by law, because “we are a Christian people” whose country does not draw on the doctrines of “those imposters.”

Several years later, in 1824, a member of a debating society was convicted of blasphemy by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court after saying during a debate: “The Holy Scriptures were a mere fable, that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies.” In this case — Updegraph v. Commonwealth — the court argued that it was a “vulgarly shocking and insulting” statement that reflected “the highest offence” against public morals and was a disturbance to “public peace.”

By the end of the 19th century, a prominent free thought movement that rejected religion as a guide for reason had begun to emerge. Movement leaders embraced the public critiquing of Christianity and challenged laws that favored Christians, such as blasphemy laws and mandatory Bible readings in public schools.

Unsurprisingly, as historian Leigh Eric Schmidt has noted, speakers and writers in the movement regularly faced threats of blasphemy charges.

By this time, however, even in cases where freethinkers were convicted of blasphemy, judges appeared to offer leniency.

In 1887, C.B. Reynolds, an ex-preacher who became a prominent free thought speaker, was convicted of blasphemy in New Jersey after he publicly doubted the existence of God. He faced a $200 fine and up to a year in prison. The judge, however, only fined Reynolds $25, plus court costs.

While it is unclear why Reynolds was offered leniency, historian Leonard Levy suggests that it may have been to avoid making Reynolds a martyr of the free thought movement by imprisoning him.

Protecting blaspheme as free speech

Growing calls for religious equality and freedom of speech increasingly swayed blasphemy cases in the 1900s.

In 1917, for example, Michael X. Mockus, who had previously been convicted of blasphemy in Connecticut for his free thought lectures, was acquitted in a similar case in Illinois.

While expressing dislike for blasphemy, Judge Perry L. Persons argued that the court’s job is not to determine which religion is right. He said “the Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Mahammedan, the Jew, the Freethinker, the Atheist” must “all stand equal before the law.”

Then, in 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson after New York rescinded the license for the film “The Miracle.” The film was deemed sacrilegious because of its supposed mockery of the Catholic faith.

The high court ruled that states could not ban sacrilegious films. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state, it ruled, and an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of religion and speech.

Even after the Supreme Court decision, Americans continued to occasionally face blasphemy charges. But courts shot the charges down.

In 1968, when Irving West, a 20-year-old veteran, told a policeman to “Get your goddam hands off me” after getting in a fight, he was charged with disorderly conduct and violating Maryland’s blasphemy law. When West appealed, a circuit court judge ruled the law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

Despite these rulings, in 1977, Pennsylvania enacted a blasphemy statute banning businesses from having blasphemous names after a local businessman tried to name his gun store “The God Damn Gun Shop.” It was not until 2010 that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deemed this statute unconstitutional.

The decision followed a case in which the owner of a film production company sued the state after his request to register his company under the name “I Choose Hell Productions, LLC” was denied on the grounds that it was blasphemous. Citing the 1952 Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson case, the judge ruled that the statute was a violation of First Amendment rights.

A sign of democratic freedom

As historian David Sehat highlights in his book “The Myth of American Religious Freedom,” since America was founded there have been strong disagreements over what religious freedom should look like. Blasphemy laws have been a key part of this clash.

Historically, many Americans have viewed the laws as justifiable. Some believed Christianity deserved special protection and reverence. Others, including some Founding Fathers such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, have viewed the same laws as unconstitutional restrictions of free speech and religious expression.

There has recently been growing attention to the rise of Christian nationalism, the belief that the United States is or should be a Christian nation. Amid this rise, there have been attacks on free speech, such as the increase in book bans and restrictions on public protests. I believe it’s important that we, as Americans, learn from this history of the fight for the freedom of religion and speech.

Kristina M. Lee, Assistant Professor, University of South Dakota

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.