u/FreethoughtChris

The Florida attorney general is FFRF Action Fund’s “Theocrat of the Week” for indicating that he will no longer enforce the state Constitution’s clear prohibition on public funding of religion.

Last week, Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a memo announcing that his office will not enforce the state Constitution’s ban on the use of public funds in the “aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution,” as outlined in Article I, Section 3, of the Florida Constitution. The memo puts forward distorted and historically inaccurate depictions of the First Amendment, claiming that it allows the government to “encourage” Christianity and that Christianity is constitutionally privileged. In response, FFRF Action Fund’s parent organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, sent a timely letter to the attorney general, demanding that he honor the rule of law and true religious freedom.

Uthmeier contends in the memo that none of Article I, Section 3 is constitutional and therefore cannot be enforced. Under Uthmeier’s guidance, Florida will ignore the will of the people and will allow taxpayer dollars to directly fund religion, funneling public funds into religious charter schools and scholarships for religious schools.

“Establishment and encouragement are not the same,” Uthmeier writes about the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause in the memo. “No Framer would have conflated the two. The First Amendment prohibits the former (at the federal level), but not the latter.”

Uthmeier continues relying on a distorted historical lens, “It is clear, then, that the First Amendment did not displace Christianity as the center of the nation’s religious identity. At the Framing, ‘the general, if not universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.’”

Uthmeier also specifically singles out the nonreligious in the memo, writing, “The First Amendment’s focus on religion was intentional: Actions motivated by nonreligious beliefs (be they philosophical, political, ideological, or social) do not receive the same protection. … The Free Exercise Clause does, of course, protect the right not to believe in any particular faith … but it does not privilege actions motivated by unbelief in the same way it privileges actions motivated by belief.”

The memo argues that the state’s requirement for charter schools, which, of course, are public schools, to be “nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and operations,” is a “blanket exclusion of all religious entities” and violates the First Amendment.

“Florida’s Constitution rightly recognizes that ‘We, the people of the state of Florida,’ are ‘grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty,’” Uthmeier writes in the memo’s conclusion. “That constitutional liberty includes the right for religious people and entities to participate in public programs and benefits like everyone else. Any law, or any interpretation of the state Constitution, that violates this basic right will not — consistent with my oath — be enforced or defended by my office.”

By removing total enforcement of the Florida Constitution, Uthmeier is encouraging religious groups to launch charter schools in the Sunshine State. Of course, watchdog groups like FFRF will be there to litigate any attempts at establishing unconstitutional religious charter schools.

Uthmeier has a history of ignoring the Florida Constitution to privilege Christianity. In December, FFRF criticized Uthemier for falsely accusing private companies, professional organizations and local governments of “anti-Christian discrimination” (including Microsoft and the American Bar Association).

FFRF Action Fund asserts that Uthmeier cannot pick and choose which parts of the Florida Constitution he wishes to enforce. He has a duty to follow the rule of law and abide by the state Constitution’s no-aid clause. His memo clearly indicates that the attorney general is willing to abuse his government authority to privilege his religion — wholly earning Uthmeier his “Theocrat” label.

FFRF Action Fund honors Tool lead singer Maynard James Keenan as its “Secularist of the Week” for his recent remarks on the importance of state/church separation.

Keenan, who is also the frontman of the bands A Perfect Circle and Puscifer, spoke in a recent interview with the Arizona Republic about the current political climate in the United States and its religious fundamentalism while promoting a new Puscifer project and an upcoming concert in Phoenix. Puscifer’s latest album, titled “Normal Isn’t,” was released in February, leading Keenan to reflect on the “pretty insane times” our country is experiencing. He stressed that none of the current realities in the United States can be considered normal.

When the interviewer asked Keenan how our country has gotten to this point, Keenan reflected on the undermining of our education system.

“That’s definitely historically where regimes start,” Keenan said. “[Making] sure that the people are kind of dumb and then they can just kind of tell them whatever they want and they don’t have the frame of reference or the tools to debunk what they’re being told, to critically think, to reason out puzzles — and then you end up here.”

The conversation then turned to religious fundamentalism and its lasting impact on society.

“This has to find a balance,” Keenan stressed. “It has to be a breaking point when you have religious fundamentalists calling all the shots. True believers are scary. It doesn’t sustain, right?”

He continued, “Historically, when you have people that are choosing violent oppressions, it doesn’t last. It lasts long enough to hurt and do damage, like generational damage, but it doesn’t last.”

When the interviewer remarked on the absurdity of young people being drawn to religious fundamentalism, Keenan agreed and pointed to the vitality of state/church separation.

“The separation of church and state, I absolutely believe that, because when it comes to state, it’s like … It’s a mechanism,” Keenan said. “It’s a car, it’s an engine, it’s mechanics. There’s no faith involved. There’s a mechanics to this thing. You can have your faith, but it shouldn’t affect how your car runs.”

Read Keenan’s full interview with the Arizona Republic here.

The FFRF Action Fund warmly thanks Keenan for naming the constitutional separation of state and church as a bedrock of American society. Public figures who raise awareness of the dangers of religious fundamentalism and encroachment on the wall between state and church are always a welcome addition in the ongoing fight to safeguard our secular democracy.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in favor of a street preacher, leading to some questions from our membership about whether this was yet another court ruling privileging religion. My answer would be no — with one caveat.

The concern from members was understandable given that the court under Chief Justice John Roberts is no stranger to deciding matters concerning religion. Over the last decade, it has strengthened religious Free Exercise rights of individuals while weakening Establishment Clause protections designed to keep religion and government separate. Cases such as Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, Carson v. Makin and Kennedy v. Bremerton all had direct impacts on the way religion is treated under the U.S. Constitution — giving religion more favorable constitutional treatment than before.

Even aside from cases that deal directly with faith-related laws, the court cannot seem to free itself from the throes of religion’s holy grasp. In 2015, the justices expanded free speech protections for religious messaging against content discrimination, and in 2023, they held that the government cannot compel anti-gay business owners to create a message that goes against their religious beliefs. These religious preference cases have shown no sign of slowing down.

On March 20, the court released its decision in Olivier v. City of Brandon, a case known colloquially as “the street preacher case.” The legal issue had nothing to do with religion — the court considered whether a constitutional challenge to a statute brought under Section 1983 of the U.S. Code was precluded if the plaintiff had already been convicted under said statute. Section 1983 authorizes civil rights suits against state officials for violating a plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The court’s unanimous opinion held that so long as the plaintiff was not seeking retrospective relief (that is, not seeking to overturn any prior fine or prison sentence), such a suit is allowed.

While the court’s core legal reasoning and decision make sense, the facts under which the challenge arose are notable. The man who brought the lawsuit is named Gabriel Olivier, and he is a street preacher in Mississippi. As noted in the court’s opinion, Olivier “believes that sharing his religious views with fellow citizens is an important part of exercising his faith.” Because of this, Olivier took to the sidewalks outside an amphitheater in the city of Brandon to evangelize passersby.

Due to other protesters and speakers frequenting the same area and causing disruption, the city enacted an ordinance establishing a dedicated area for demonstrations. For Olivier, that area just wouldn’t do — he found it too remote to be able to spread his religion to his liking. Instead, he chose to violate the ordinance and preach where he wanted anyway, disruptive effects be damned. He was convicted of the violation, fined and sentenced to a year of probation.

The core holding of this case does not directly implicate religion. Its holding extends beyond any faith-based context and opens an avenue for potentially aggrieved individuals to challenge government action as unconstitutional — a rare win from the Roberts Court for civil rights plaintiffs. Perhaps it’s more noteworthy, though, that a win for civil rights plaintiffs comes from a Christian preacher who decided his evangelism was too important for the rules that everybody else has to follow.

Herein lies yet another signal of this Supreme Court’s growing trend: If you bring a civil rights case to its attention, it sure helps if you’re religious.

A recent Freedom From Religion Foundation’s investigation into a faith-based program slated for an Ohio juvenile facility revealed that it was never formally approved. It will not take place now.

FFRF wrote to the Trumbull County Juvenile Detention Center last month after receiving reports that a program called “MyTribe,” led by a Christian singer, songwriter and motivational speaker, was being introduced for detained minors. The state/church watchdog warned that implementing a religious program in a government-run correctional setting would violate the First Amendment and risk coercing vulnerable youth into religious participation.

In response to FFRF’s letter, officials clarified that the MyTribe program had not actually been approved or implemented by the detention center. The program appears to have been driven entirely and without authority by Trumbull County Family Court Judge David Engler, who publicly touted the initiative as a faith-based effort to provide guidance to detained youth. Engler’s official judicial biography explicitly states that he “credits his Christian faith in God” for his position on the bench.

Engler told a local news outlet that he was “partnering with Pastor Jason David to lead the MyTribe program.” The program was called MyTribe “because it follows the story of the 12 tribes of Israel in the Bible.” It raised serious concerns about grandstanding and the misuse of public office to advance one judge’s religious agenda.

“I know the power that can be found in finding religion, finding spirituality, finding Jesus,” said Engler in justification of the program. “For some of these young men and women, they don’t have a father figure in their life. And to get the message that there’s a father figure God that loves you unconditionally — no matter what you’ve done.”

FFRF pointed out the drawbacks of this Christianity-centered approach.

“Youth detainees are almost certain to feel coercive pressure to participate in the MyTribe program even if they are nonreligious or members of minority faiths,” wrote FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence. “When young offenders see authority figures encouraging detainee participation in this faith-based program created in part by a county judge, they will no doubt feel that participation is not just encouraged, but expected.”

The proposed program would have consisted of weekly sessions led by a pastor focusing on “character” and “personal growth,” with participation described as voluntary. However, FFRF emphasized in its letter that even voluntary religious programming in correctional settings can be inherently coercive, particularly for minors under state authority.

“This was an unconstitutional scheme to convert detainees who were not only minors, but also literally a captive audience,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “We are delighted that reason and the Constitution have prevailed, and that the program will not happen.”

FFRF will continue to advocate for constitutionally sound, secular programs that serve all youth regardless of religious belief.

“The Constitution requires neutrality, not promotion of religion,” Gaylor adds. “Public officials should focus on evidence-based, inclusive approaches to rehabilitation, not religious indoctrination.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling out U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins for sending an explicitly Christian devotional email, apparently to almost 100,000 USDA employees.

FFRF has received multiple complaints from USDA staff regarding the April 5 message, sent as an official message from the “Office of the Secretary OSEC,” which proclaimed Easter as “the greatest story ever told, the foundation of our faith, and the abiding hope of all mankind.”

FFRF has sent a formal letter to Secretary Rollins demanding that she refrain from using official communications to promote her personal religious beliefs in the future.

The purely scriptural message was headlined: “Happy Easter – He is Risen indeed!” Rollins’ email went far beyond a simple greeting, instead delivering an extended theological message about Jesus’ resurrection, sin and salvation, and invoking other explicitly Christian doctrine.

Rollins reiterated Christian faith as fact, writing: “From the foot of the Cross on Good Friday to the stone rolled away from the now empty tomb, sin has been destroyed. Jesus has been raised from the dead. And God has granted each of us victory and new life. And where there is life — risen life—there is hope.”

Then Rollins counseled: “No matter the very real trials and hardships we face, fear and sin and death do not get the last word. Because on Easter morning, ‘Hell took a body, and discovered God. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.’ Now that is reason to rejoice!”

Continuing in this vein, Rollins sermonized: “And so like the very first disciples to encounter our risen Lord in the Upper Room almost two thousand years ago, this Easter let us too be alive with hope, full of Paschal joy, and confident in the mission each of us has been called for.”

Finally, Rollins ended with this devotional wish: “I hope you and your loved ones have a truly blessed and happy Easter. May God continue to bless you, your families, and our exceptional country, One Nation, Under God.”

Employees who contacted FFRF described the message as inappropriate and insulting, noting that public servants should not be confronted with overtly religious messaging from the head of a federal agency. Those affronted and excluded by Rollins’ rant would include significant numbers, since 29 percent of U.S. adults identify as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular,” Another 7 percent subscribe to non-Christian faiths. Additionally, many federal employees, regardless of personal beliefs, would be shocked by Rollins’ disregard of the separation between religion and government.

Writes FFRF Legal Counsel Chris Line: “No government employee should be subjected to religious preaching as part of workplace communications. By framing Easter as part of ‘the foundation of our faith,’ your message signals governmental endorsement of Christianity and conveys to employees that adherence to a particular religion is favored.”

Reminds FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor,“No federal employee should be subjected to a Christian sermon from a cabinet secretary. Our secular Constitution bars a religious test for public office, and certainly bars a religious test to be a USDA employee.

“To see such an inappropriate message — using official email channels and the imprimatur of our federal government,” adds Gaylor, “really shows that Christian nationalism has run amok in the Trump Administration.”

Ravenswood (W.Va.) City Council members will no longer deliver religious invocations at official meetings — thanks to the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s constitutional advocacy.

A concerned community member reported that at the Jan. 20 meeting, Council Member Todd Ritchie led a prayer to begin the public meeting. Mayor Josh Miller asked all attendees to stand, then asked either for a moment of silence for a member of the public to lead a prayer. Ritchie said he would “step out of his role” to lead the prayer, remaining at his spot on the council bench. He gave a Christian prayer, directing it to the “Heavenly Father” and ending with “in Jesus’ name we pray. Amen.” 

Because a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals precedent specifically weighed in against prayer led by local legislators, FFRF wrote a letter to the mayor asking that council-led prayers not become a practice at council meetings. As a policy, FFRF opposes any governmental prayer as exclusionary and inappropriate, and no city or county governmental body is required to open meetings with religious ritual.

“City Council members are free to pray privately or to worship on their own time in their own way,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Charlotte R. Gude stated. “They do not need to worship on taxpayers’ time.” 

Citizens, including Ravenswood’s nonreligious and minority faith citizens, may be compelled to come before the City Council on important civic matters and to participate in serious decisions affecting their livelihoods, property, children and quality of life, FFRF pointed out. Exclusively Christian prayers marginalize community members belonging to the 34 percent of West Virginians who are non-Christians, including the nearly one in three adult residents of the state who are religiously unaffiliated. It is coercive, embarrassing and intimidating for nonreligious individuals and members of minority religions to be required to make a public showing of their nonbelief (by not rising or praying) or else to display deference toward a religious sentiment in which they do not believe, but which their city council members clearly do.

Thankfully, FFRF’s work paid off. 

Miller responded to the state/church watchdog’s concern noting that the city has taken action to prevent further council-led prayers. “Members of the council have been apprised of the law as a result of your correspondence and will no longer offer an invocation or prayer either prior to or during any council meeting,” Miller replied in an official letter.

FFRF is always ready to rise to the occasion when government officials misuse their position for the sake of religion.

“FFRF knows that council-led religious invocations are inherently exclusionary,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor notes. “No one deserves to feel like an outsider just because one council member wants to deliver a prayer.”

The FFRF Action Fund is celebrating victories for all five of its endorsed candidates in Wisconsin’s April 7 nonpartisan elections, extending a perfect endorsement record in the Badger State across two consecutive election cycles.

Judge Chris Taylor’s election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court expands the court’s liberal majority to 5-2. Taylor, who previously served as an attorney and policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and was elected to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in 2023, will strengthen a court that has already demonstrated its commitment to reproductive freedom and the separation of state and church, shedding years of domination by extreme conservatives. 

Beyond the statewide contests, FFRF Action Fund-endorsed candidates prevailed in local races across Wisconsin. Jake Lepper won reelection to the Fitchburg City Council’s District 4. Garner Moffat won the Superior City Council District 3 race. Jason Wautier won reelection to the Wauwatosa School Board. Heidi Wegleitner was reelected to a seat on the Dane County Board of Supervisors in District 2.

Yesterday’s results follow a renewed early voter outreach partnership between the FFRF Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin (PPAWI), launched in February, that built directly on the two organizations’ successful collaboration in the April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race. In that cycle, the FFRF Action Fund invested in PPAWI’s voter mobilization program targeting young and secular voters across the state — laying the foundation to win in the midterm elections in Wisconsin.

“Wisconsin voters know what’s at stake,” says Annie Laurie Gaylor, president, FFRF Action Fund. “For two elections in a row they have shown up for reproductive freedom and against the entanglement of government and religion. That is not an accident. It is what sustained, disciplined organizing looks like.”

Marie Stolzenburg, director of organizing for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, emphasized the cumulative power of the partnership: “When we invest early and keep showing up throughout the year, we build relationships with voters that last. Tonight shows that this model works, and it positions us for the legislative races that will determine the future of access to essential health care for all in Wisconsin this November.”

The 2026 program expanded PPAWI’s direct voter contact effort to canvass voters motivated by abortion rights and First Amendment protections, building a durable voter base aimed at flipping the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate this fall.

The FFRF Action Fund’s record in Wisconsin stands undefeated in the last two spring election cycles.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is decrying a recent memorandum from the Florida attorney general that announces a refusal to enforce the Florida Constitution’s clear prohibition on public funding of religion.

In an April 2 memo, Attorney General James Uthmeier declared that his office will not enforce Article I, Section 3, of the Florida Constitution, which explicitly states that no public funds “shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination.” FFRF has sent a formal letter to Uthmeier demanding that he reverse course and fulfill his duty to uphold Florida law. The state/church watchdog is calling the memo a breathtaking abuse of office and warning that it represents a direct attack on both the rule of law and religious freedom.

“Attorney General Uthmeier does not get to pick and choose which parts of the Florida Constitution he feels like enforcing,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “His refusal to uphold this clear constitutional provision is not only legally baseless, but also a dereliction of duty.”

FFRF notes that Florida’s no-aid clause reflects the will of the state’s citizens in making certain that taxpayer dollars are not used to fund religious institutions. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires states to subsidize religion — and longstanding constitutional principles allow states to adopt stronger protections for church-state separation.

This is not an isolated incident. FFRF has previously criticized Uthmeier for a series of misleading and unconstitutional actions in which he falsely accused private companies, professional organizations and local governments of “anti-Christian discrimination.” In November, he targeted entities including Microsoft, the American Bar Association and the city of Pensacola, advancing similarly baseless claims that collapse under even basic constitutional scrutiny.

“Florida is not a Christian state, and the United States is not a Christian nation,” FFRF Legal Counsel Chris Line told a reporter for USA Today at the time. “These actions are completely inappropriate. They show the attorney general is willing to use government authority to advance a narrow form of Christianity.”

FFRF is also criticizing Uthmeier’s recent memo for advancing a distorted and historically inaccurate view of the First Amendment, including claims that the government may “encourage” Christianity and that Christianity occupies a privileged place in the nation’s constitutional order.

“That is flatly wrong,” says Gaylor. “The First Amendment forbids the government from favoring religion over nonreligion or privileging one faith over another. Suggesting otherwise is not constitutional interpretation — it’s Christian nationalism.”

FFRF is additionally cautioning that Uthmeier’s attempt to justify directing taxpayer funds to religious charter schools fundamentally misrepresents recent Supreme Court decisions. Cases such as Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin do not require states to fund religious instruction or dismantle constitutional safeguards against government support of religion.

“Public schools are not private grant programs,” Gaylor says. “They are government entities, and they must remain secular.”

FFRF emphasizes this point in its letter.

“Floridians of all faiths and none deserve a government that respects both religious freedom and constitutional limits.,” Line writes. “That requires keeping public funds for public purposes and out of the collection plate.”

FFRF is calling on Uthmeier to resign if he is unwilling to carry out his constitutional obligations.

It’s hard not to cheer when anyone, even indirectly, takes to task Christian nationalist and “War Secretary” Pete Hegseth over his call to Americans to pray “every day on bended knee … in the name of Jesus Christ” to support President Trump’s reckless war of choice against Iran.

But it sticks in my craw that Pope Leo XIV’s recent statements ostensibly criticizing Hegseth actually whitewash the bloody history of the Roman Catholic Church. During Leo’s Palm Sunday Mass, he warned not to invoke Jesus in battle, contending that Jesus “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.” The pope didn’t mention Hegseth by name, but he has earlier criticized the Iran war. During a later Mass on April 2, Leo claimed Christianity has been “distorted by a desire for domination entirely foreign to the way of Jesus Christ” and that “God has given us an example — not of how to dominate, but of how to liberate; not of how to destroy life but of how to give it.”

Has Christianity been distorted? Does “God” reject domination and destruction in favor of liberation and life? Did Jesus eschew the sword? Does the Jesus embraced by Christians really reject those who wage war? And if so, why then isn’t Leo also condemning the Catholic Church’s centuries-long Crusades, Inquisitions, wars, pogroms and Christian imperialism “in the name of Jesus Christ”? What about the Church’s 15th-century Doctrine of Discovery, based on papal decrees, justifying the right of Europeans to conquer, forcibly convert, commit genocide against and steal the lands of “heathen” peoples in the Americas? (For a succinct recap of the violent history of Catholicism, I recommend this Christopher Hitchens debate on “Is the Catholic Church a force for good?” Hitch starts at about 8 minutes.)

The Old Testament God is uncontestably a god of war and destruction, as Exodus 15:3 even says outright: “The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” FFRF Co-President Dan Barker has written an entire book, “GOD: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction,” to fully document the monstrous words and actions attributed to the biblical deity. To cite just a few of the hundreds of examples of the biblical deity’s warrior mentality: Yahweh says to Moses: “Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun.” (Numbers 25:4). “And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and . . . we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain” (Deuteronomy 2:32–34). Here’s that delightful pro-life verse: “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones” (Psalm 137:9). But don’t take my word for the Old Testament deity’s character — FFRF has created a fun, interactive website, “The Unpleasant God Companion,” where you can read many such bible verses for yourself.

Most modern Christians are nicer than the biblical deity and appear to believe they only need to pay attention to the New Testament and the words of “Gentle Jesus.” OK, let’s humor them and play that game. Did Jesus distance himself from the Old Testament’s god of war? Not so much: “If you have seen me, you have seen the father” (John 14:9). “I and the father are one” (John 10:30). Trying to divorce Jesus from Jehovah is quite the parlor trick, since Christian trinity doctrine insists they are one and the same.

The most famous utterance of Jesus uniting himself with the teachings of the Old Testament is this verse: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18).

Read that verse in context: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17–20).

But wait! In the very same chapter of Matthew, verse 48, Jesus goes on to repudiate the Old Testament’s “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” laws, advising to turn the other cheek. In Matthew 5:43, he continues in this vein: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Which Jesus do we believe? The one who clearly says you won’t go to heaven unless you uphold Mosaic law or the one who appears to say just love your neighbor?

Similarly, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is famously quoted saying, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). But by the next chapter, Jesus contradicts himself, yet again. Chapter 10 begins with Jesus casting out “unclean spirits” from his 12 disciples — not exactly giving him credibility to 21st-century minds — then instructing them to go out and preach that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Jesus, a narcissist and paranoid, petulantly commands: “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on Earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Matthew 10: 32-38).

(Please remember that one of the 12 tattoos sported on Pete Hegseth’s overexposed body depicts a cross with a sword inside it, a direct reference to this verse, Matthew 10:34. And speaking about the Catholic Church’s unacknowledged history of launching wars in the name of Jesus, Hegseth also sports a large Jerusalem cross on his right pectoral. His bicep touts the battle cry of the First Crusade, “Deus Vult,” meaning “God wills it.”)

Matthew 10:34 is not the only reference to taking up swords. There’s Jesus’ bizarre advice in Luke 22:36: “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Not exactly worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Yet the pope, in his April 2 homily, quotes a discrepant verse from Matthew 26:52: “Put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

Which verse do we follow? Obviously, whichever verse the quoter opportunistically cares to, because the massively contradictory bible can be used to theologically justify almost anything. As FFRF’s “The Born Again Skeptic Guide to the Bible” author Ruth Green observed, the danger in venerating a so-called holy book based on blind authority is that it is a “behavioral grab-bag.”

The New Testament verse most beloved of Christian nationalists and “spiritual warriors” is the frightening, primitive Ephesians 6:11: “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.” Not exactly reason-based advice we would wish to adopt as official policy in the United States, Hegseth’s intentions notwithstanding.

Yet Hegseth, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee and other “End Time” zealots find justification for Middle Eastern conflagrations as fulfillment of prophecy in the very same book the pope claims repudiates such a reading. Hegseth and the pope (officially deemed the “Vicar of Christ on Earth” by his church) share the same hubris in claiming to speak for Jesus and in Leo’s case, to even know whose prayers Jesus would answer. They are two sides of the same coin, hollowly arguing from religious authority, and claiming public policy must follow their interpretations of discrepant teachings.

The Apostle Paul commanded Christians to agree on all things (1 Corinthians 1:10). The fact that these two Peters (the so-called successor of Saint Peter and Peter Hegseth) cannot agree on how to interpret scripture proves that the bible is a worthless, dangerous guide to public policy and a threat to global ethics. Judicious decisions should be based on human morality, not on a baffling, bellicose Bronze Age book. Whenever anyone insists they know what their god wants, watch out!

While appreciative of anyone speaking out against Trump’s imprudent, harmful and risky war, I’ll pay more deference to Leo’s pronouncements of peace when he ends the Vatican’s global war on the right to safe and legal abortion, contraception, marriage equality and LGBTQ+ rights.

Physician heal thyself (Luke 4:23).

If you listen to lawmakers trying to force religion into public schools, you’ll hear the same line repeated again and again: “It’s about history.”

Let’s test that claim against what their theocratic bills actually do.

Start with recent laws like Texas Senate Bill 10, requiring every public school classroom to display the Ten Commandments, typically mandating a specific, state-approved Protestant version of the Decalogue — a permanent government-mandated display of Scripture.

Courts have concluded that this obviously violates the religious liberty rights of public school students, a decision the U.S. Supreme Court made over 40 years ago. The only defense lawmakers can muster is a disingenuous and indistinct claim that the bill is about teaching history rather than religion.

If this legislation were really about teaching history, lawmakers might require high schools to cover how America’s founding generation debated the extent to which the government should align itself with religion — and ultimately decided that it should remain secular. This historical fact is directly and deliberately undermined by forcing schools to display a single religious text, presented alone, in every classroom, every day. That’s not how history is taught. It’s how religion is promoted and a captive audience of youngsters are indoctrinated.

Elsewhere, lawmakers are trying to play the same game with the so-called Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act. This bill, first introduced in Ohio, has since been copied and advanced in Tennessee. Supporters insist this bill is about allowing teachers to discuss religion in history. But that was never prohibited. Public schools have always been allowed to teach about religion.

What this bill actually does is steer instruction to a Christian nationalist perspective on history. It emphasizes teaching the “positive impact of religion on American history,” giving away the game right off the bat. Teaching only the “positive” side of an issue is not neutral history; it’s a mandate about how history should be framed as one-sided propaganda.

The bill lists 20 specific “historic accounts” that are riddled with historical flaws. Lawmakers were explicitly told (by the FFRF Action Fund, among others) that many of the claims underlying these efforts are historically disputed or debunked. They moved forward anyway with no meaningful amendments and no correction of the record.

For example, the bill suggests that teachers tell students about “the historic role of the black robe regiment.” We informed lawmakers that this “regiment” is a modern myth invented by discredited pseudo-historian David Barton. The bill also states students should be taught Benjamin Franklin so disliked Thomas Paine’s book “The Age of Reason” that he urged Paine to burn it. We informed the bill’s sponsors that Paine didn’t start writing “The Age of Reason” until 1793, several years after Franklin’s death. A responsible lawmaker would not only rush to correct these embarrassing mistakes but would also condemn the source that fed them this misinformation. However, in Ohio and in Tennessee, bill sponsors ignored the historical correction and continued to advance the bill as spuriously written — because accuracy has never been the point.

Once you zoom out, the pattern becomes impossible to ignore. Across the country, lawmakers are advancing:

Ten Commandments mandates in classrooms.

School chaplain programs.

“Released time” schemes for off-campus religious instruction.

Voucher expansions funding religious schools.

Revisions to social studies standards emphasizing Christianity.

Each one is assigned a different label. Each one is described as something benign. But strip away the rhetoric, and the structure is always the same: government power being used to elevate religion — specifically one religious tradition, usually a Protestant evangelical version — in public schools.

If this were about history, legislators would expand access to primary sources, fund civics education, and support teachers in presenting complex, evidence-based narratives. Instead, they are mandating scripture displays and directing educators toward a government-sanctioned religious reinterpretation of the past. That’s not academic, nor is it neutral or historical. It’s a misuse of government authority to advance one religion.

Public schools serve everyone: students of every religion and of none. The moment the state begins privileging one set of beliefs as foundational, preferred or uniquely worthy of emphasis, it stops teaching history and starts teaching theology.

So let’s stop pretending.

These bills aren’t about teaching students about religion. They’re about teaching students which religion their government prefers. Lawmakers who repeat the ruse that any of these bills are about advancing history should face a quick and consistent reckoning because they are lying to their constituents — and they know it.

As bills rooted in Christian nationalism continue to spread across the country, it’s important to remember that we are fighting back. We are building momentum by working directly with allied lawmakers, informing them of these issues and equipping them with ways to fight back. Already so far this year, state lawmakers in Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Vermont filed our new Keep Proselytizing Out of Public Schools (KPOP) model legislation.

And we’re just getting started. In 2027, we’re expecting to expand our model legislation to additional states, including Ohio and Tennessee. When sound policy is combined with our network of Action Alert advocates, momentum builds and we restore the constitutional principle of state/church separation.

🗳️ Stay Active with FFRF Action Fund

Thank you for your interest in FFRF Action Fund’s state policy work. We need advocates in every state to stand up for our secular government, and we could not do this crucial work without your help! If you are receiving this, you have likely already signed up to receive FFRF AF Action Alerts, but please check out action alerts in your area, as well as acquainting yourself with your local, state and federal representatives, by going to the Action Center.

An outrageous resolution proclaiming “Christ is King,”back under consideration in the Oklahoma Legislature, is an un-American attack on religious freedom and needs to be stopped.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 19 states: “The Oklahoma State Legislature hereby proclaims ‘Christ is King,’ recognizing the spiritual significance of this declaration to many of its citizens and honoring the role of faith in the history and culture of Oklahoma.” It passed the state House last year and is now in the state Senate.

The FFRF Action Fund points out that the history of the United States illustrates the falsity of such a claim.

“The revolutionaries who founded the United States threw the king out,” says FFRF Action Fund President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Then they deliberately adopted a godless Constitution that rejects a monarchy, terrestrial or otherwise, and that explicitly forbids the government from establishing any religion.”

The resolution is a variation of legislation introduced in North Dakota and Montana, both of which deservedly died quick deaths. The Oklahoma resolution, while jettisoning the bible verses that appeared in the original, is nevertheless a brazen attempt to inject Christian nationalism into government and is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

In a patently unpersuasive attempt to justify the resolution’s unconstitutional purpose, the legislation insists that “this resolution is not intended to establish any religion or infringe upon the rights of any individual.” Yet the resolution declares that the phrase “‘Christ is King’ represents a declaration of faith for millions of Oklahomans and Christians worldwide, symbolizing the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.” Furthermore, it asserts, “This proclamation serves as an expression of gratitude for the blessings bestowed upon the State of Oklahoma and as a recognition of the enduring influence of Christian faith in the lives of its people.”

However, the U.S. Constitution explicitly places sovereignty not in a divinity, but in “We the People,” the Action Fund points out.

Gaylor emphasizes that matters of faith and conscience are not subject to majority rule. Even if every resident of Oklahoma identified as Christian, the state would still be prohibited by the federal and state constitutions from establishing Christianity as the official state religion.

Besides, the latest Pew Research Center “Religious Landscape Survey” shows that 26 percent of Oklahomans have no religion and are either atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular.” Another 2 percent identify with religions other than Christianity. These citizens cannot be treated as second-class or be asked by the Legislature to bow down to someone else’s deity.

The FFRF Action Fund calls on Oklahoma lawmakers to honor their oath to uphold the U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutions by swiftly and soundly rejecting this unconstitutional resolution.

FFRF Action Fund is calling on you to stand against Senate Concurrent Resolution 19! This symbolic resolution proclaims “Christ is King” in Oklahoma. While merely symbolic in nature, this resolution is a direct affront to the constitutional principle of separation between state and church. It marginalizes Oklahomans of non-Christian faiths and those who are nonreligious.​

Why SCR 19 is Problematic:

It violates constitutional principles: By endorsing Christianity, this resolution violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from endorsing religion.

It excludes non-Christian citizens: Such a proclamation alienates non-Christian residents, including those of other faiths and secular individuals, undermining the state’s commitment to religious neutrality.​ Twenty-six percent of Oklahomans identify as Atheist, Agnostic or “Nothing-in-Particular.” This resolution tells a large swath of the population that their views are not welcome in Oklahoma.

Sets a dangerous precedent: Governmental endorsement of a particular religion can lead to further erosion of religious freedom and pluralism in public institutions — We’ve seen this happen before! While passed as a meaningless resolution, SCR 19 paves the way for furthering the Christian nationalist agenda in Oklahoma.

Take action to stand up for true religious freedom!

Oklahoma’s government should represent all its citizens, not just those of a particular faith. Let’s ensure that our state remains a place where freedom of religion — and freedom from government-imposed religion — is respected and protected. We have included talking points through the “Take Action” button that you can edit to your liking. For best results, please be succinct and polite. For extra impact, you will be directed to a phone script to call legislators after you email them. Please take the extra minute to call them if you can!

(Note: You must live in Oklahoma in order to take part in this action alert.)