‘This isn’t a peacekeeping initiative — this is a terror campaign’: Texas faith leaders condemn ICE deaths
AUSTIN, Texas (RNS) — A group of religious leaders gathered Wednesday (July 22) at the Texas State Capitol to condemn recent immigration enforcement-related deaths in Texas, Maine and Florida and to demand that federal immigration agents end what one pastor called a “terror campaign” against migrants.
“We grieve every death, every act of violence and every enforcement practice that unnecessarily endangers human life or diminishes the God-given dignity of our immigrant neighbors,” said Bishop Sue Briner of the Southwestern Texas Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. “When fear begins to shape the daily lives of our neighbors, it is time for the church to show up.”
The news conference inside the Capitol brought together about two dozen leaders from the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Diocese of Texas, the South Central Conference of the United Church of Christ, the National Council of Jewish Women and other faith-related groups. Texas Impact, an interfaith grassroots advocacy network, organized the event in response to the July 7 fatal shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo during a traffic stop by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Houston.
The religious leaders present condemned deportations, detention centers and enforcement-related deaths involving ICE amid the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts.
Federal agents who determine that their actions have been immoral should “resign and find other work,” said the Rev. Jim Harrington of St. James’ Episcopal Church in Austin, where he works with immigrants, and who is also a lawyer who founded the Texas Civil Rights Project.
“Following orders is never a justification in the Christian tradition — nor in international law — to perpetuate evil,” Harrington said.
The Rev. Dan De Leon, senior pastor at Friends Congregational Church in College Station, invoked the Sermon on the Mount. “Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.’ Notice that Jesus does not say, ‘Blessed are the peacekeepers,’ which is what ICE alleges to be doing in our communities,” De Leon said.
This isn’t a peacekeeping initiative — this is a terror campaign with the mission of traumatizing our neighbors until they self-deport,” De Leon said.
Jewish leaders turned to their faith as well: “Jewish tradition teaches that whoever saves a life saves the entire world, and conversely, whoever destroys a life destroys the whole world,” said Bettie Forman, with the National Council of Jewish Women Austin.
Others called for accountability and transparency.
“Candidates for law enforcement must be properly vetted, fully and carefully trained, and held accountable when they do not meet appropriate standards,” said Elyse Rosenberg, who represented NCJW and is a member of Temple Beth Shalom, a Reform synagogue in Austin.
“Throughout our history, we have repeatedly seen firsthand the consequences of governments exercising unchecked power on vulnerable populations,” she said, adding that accountability should include impartial investigations of agent-involved shootings.
Earlier this week, multiple news outlets reported the FBI would no longer investigate confrontations with immigration agents. Federal officials denied the change.
The religious leaders also pressed for:
- Clear limits on the use of lethal force and an end to dangerous tactics when pulling over vehicles.
- Restrictions on using unmarked vehicles and plainclothes agents.
- Clearly visible identification and body cameras for federal immigration agents.
- Independent oversight of ICE operations with meaningful consequences if agents violate policy or the law.
Families also deserve to be treated humanely and should never learn through social media that a loved one has been detained, seriously injured or killed, said Grace Bonilla, a policy advocate with Texas Impact.
“We are here today because Texans of faith and conscience refuse to accept what we witnessed in Houston as proper immigration enforcement,” Bonilla said, referring to Araujo. “That conviction does not conflict with border security. We recognize the federal government’s responsibility to enforce our immigration laws and maintain our borders, but enforcement must never come at the expense of human life.”
Texas state Rep. Vikki Goodwin, the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, attended the news conference, calling the religious leaders’ requests reasonable and encouraging legislators to pay attention.
“I think the local or state government can have an impact on federal government by saying, ‘You’re coming into our state, this is what we want to see here,'” she said. “We want safety, not ICE agents who are wearing masks, who are frightening our community.”
“This is not a partisan issue; this is a humanity issue,” Goodwin said.
This story is published through a collaboration between Religion News Service and The Texas Tribune.
Holy Texas
Bang! Texas. Graffiti, Portland, Oregon. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.
I have been thinking about folks who are into one or another messianic worldviews. This can be a secular or religious search for what is really a false sense of certainty. Either way that need for certainty requires one to think that history is foreordained and believe they hold the secret to correctly predicting mankind’s future. The United States has several versions of this obsession, among them Christian Fundamentalists and Christian Nationalists.
Who Are They?
You can describe these fundamentalists and nationalists as Christian absolutists. That is, anything the Bible (preferable the King James version) says is absolutely true. You can trace their communities back to 18th century America, but here I want to concentrate on the early 20th century.
In the first half of the 20th century, the fundamentalists were, by default, both politically and socially influential. This was because in many sections of the country (particularly the South) it was taken for granted that a Biblical interpretation of history and morality was self-evident. Many state legislatures, governors, town mayors and councilmen (not a lot of women in office), followed this creed (at least in public). However, this broad influence eroded in the multicultural and secularizing environment of evolving large urban centers.
That change came to the surface in 1925 because of an event in Dayton, Tennessee. There, “a high school teacher, John T. Scopes, was accused of violating a Tennessee state law by teaching human evolution in a public school.” While he was ultimately convicted and fined, the trial of Scopes was a turning point in public opinion. In those multicultural urban areas (then growing economically dominant), the Scopes trial seemed a demonstration of Christian fundamentalism’s superstitious and anti-modern character. In the decades following, many of the nation’s Christian fundamentalist communities became more insular—seeking to isolate themselves from the corrupting effects of a growing secular society.
This insularity lasted into the late 1970s. At that point in time an energetic Baptist minister/televangelist named Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority. The assertion of morality here was based on the assumption of the fundamentalist creed that it knew God’s mind. The majority assertion was an attempt to make Falwell’s movement appear larger than it actually was. In any case, Falwell was a talented organizer and the movement did grow, aligning itself with various conservative social causes. Falwell threw his support behind the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan and indeed helped Reagan become president in 1980. The movement would inspire what is now the multifaceted Christian right. In turn, the Christian right found another political hero in Donald Trump. On Trump’s coattails a slew of social reformers of Christian persuasion came to office. And so, today we are faced with not only Christian fundamentalists but also a parallel Christian nationalist campaign hoping to politically capture the entire country and universalize the religious creed that seemed to go into decline after the Scopes trial.
Texas
For someone of a secular background, someone who believes in the efficacy of science to explain the world, Christian fundamentalism is an escape into fantasy. Actually all religions are such an escape, though those that do not have messianic and proselytizing characteristics are a safer, more individually centered variety. The American brand of Christian fundamentalism is, however, something else. It is on a “mission from God.”
Want an example? Let’s take a look at Texas.
On Friday, June 26, 2026, the Republican-controlled Texas State Board of Education voted 9 to 5 to approve a required reading list for public school students that includes Bible stories. There will also be a new social science program with Christian-inspired lessons on how the “meaning” of the stories link to examples of great literature and U.S. history. This will be introduced in a state that already requires copies of the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public school classrooms. Is this an effort to institutionalize a fundamentalist form of Christianity through the mechanism of public education? There are over 5 million public school students in Texas.
Here are some examples of those Bible stories:
+ At the elementary school level emphasis will be put on adventure stories wherein good guys appear to overcome bad guys, such as David and Goliath, Daniel in the Lion’s Den, and the story of Moses. Then, in the 5th grade, there is a transfer to the New Testament with passages about Jesus somehow made compatible with the prior stories.
+ Middle School students in the 6th and 7th grade will be required to take up Jesus’s teachings. The example given by the school board is the Sermon on the Mount.
+ At the High School level the emphasis goes back to the Old Testament where students will read, among other passages, the story of Adam and Eve and the Book of Job (I wonder how the teachers will rationalize that one). In an effort to show how this is all culturally relevant, the new approach requires that “these selections will be paired alongside works like Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and books by Charles Dickens.” I think it would be fun to pair Jonah in the belly of the whale (“great fish”) with Moby Dick.
Here are a couple of questions to ask:
Except as a disguised proselytizing tool, does any of this make sense? Approximately one-third of the public school students in Texas are not Christian. They are Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and a fair number of Jews—not to mention a handful of closet atheists. As one interviewed teacher observed, “I can say all day long, ‘Well, we’re teaching a theme, we’re teaching symbolism,’ but they’re hearing, ‘This is a Bible story. We’re talking about [somebody else’s] God.’”
What percentage of the country’s educated population actually believe the rationalizations given in support of this curriculum? Rationalizations such as, (1) “Supporters of the changes have argued that Judeo-Christian traditions were fundamental to the nation’s founding and that should be reflected in the public school curriculum.” In fact, most of the “Founding Fathers” were deists. And, in 18th century America, the fundamental thing Judeo-Christian belief and the Bible were used to support was slavery. That would not change until the abolitionists came along in the 19th century—a generation past the time of the “founding.” (2) It is claimed that “these timeless works, including Biblical passages, have shaped American culture and history, and have influenced generations of thinkers, leaders, and citizens.” Well, is that a good or bad thing? If these “timeless [religious] works” were seen as so positively influential and convincing, why was there always a constitutional barrier between church and state? The answer is that the “Founding Fathers” were well aware of the bloody history of European states fused to one religion or another. It continues today in several Muslim countries as well as in Israel. Obviously this is a history unknown in the “great” state of Texas.
Finally, is any of this constitutional? Well, the U.S. Constitution forbids (in the so-called Establishment Clause of the First Amendment) the federal government from “creating or officially favoring a national religion, and from overly entangling itself in religious matters.” According to the decision of the US Supreme Court in 1940, (based on the 14th Amendment which established the supremacy of federal law) that disestablishment of religion applies to all state governments. The Texas move, on the face of it, would seem to be an effort, through its control of public education, to establish a brand of Christianity as the religion favored by the state. Hence, it is unconstitutional.
Will the Trump administration fulfill its role as defender of the Constitution in this case? The Republicans, who control both the Texas state legislature and the Board of Education, are all Trump supporters. In the last presidential election, Trump carried the state with a 13.6% majority. Given Donald Trump’s dismal record of enforcing the Constitution along progressive lines, the chances are pretty good that he will do nothing to enforce the “Establishment Clause.” This puts the president himself in conflict with the Constitution, and not for the first time.
Conclusion
Perhaps the most important point to consider is that historically, fundamentalists/absolutists (be they of the religious or secular variety) have always had a disastrous impact on society whenever they attain power. This apparent inevitability stems from (1) their hard core belief that they have a mission to direct history in a preset direction (2) and in carrying out that mission, they suppress those who disagree particularly when the dissenters get close to majority status. As far as I know, there is no historical example of fundamentalists/absolutists in power operating in a way that is compatible with democracy.
It is the power of the U.S. Constitution that can hold at bay the nation’s Christian fundamentalist attempt to rule. How long will that last? These ideologues now have a president that caters to their ambitions, and they are likely to prosper as long as he does. Thus, if Trump ever conspires to overturn the Constitution, the Christian fundamentalists can be expected to back him.
This is what happens when you know no history or have been raised to replace real history with myth. The Texas State Board of Education has taken the first step in that direction.
2 Comments
DSA and the Democratic party management operate in a kind of symbiosis. DSA is heavily dependent on the party’s electoral infrastructure, and DSA is tolerated only because it attracts voters. The party operatives know very well that purging the predominantly moderately Left DSA can have disastrous electoral consequences. The most fundamental problem DSA faces is that all the “progressives” it supports are elected independently with individual programs, and not as a block. They are Democratic candidates, not DSA candidates, will be neutralized in various ways, and will likely to make more symbolic rather than a decisive difference in the Congress. Business as usual. And the DSA insiders, including the author, know this game and its outcome very well, but they must have serious motives to play it again.
In the long run, socialists running for office as members of a right-wing capitalist party funded by billionaires, Wall Street and corporations, is not going to work either. It’s far far more likely that they get either defeated or co-opted by the Democratic Party than they turn the Democrats into a socialist party. They need to abandon the Democrats and run as themselves or they’ll have no credibility.