Texas’ new “Religious Liberty” committee is another Christian power grab

Friendly Atheist
By Hemant Mehta

The post Texas’ new “Religious Liberty” committee is another Christian power grab appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Breaking — FFRF court victory! Federal judge rules Arkansas Ten Commandments monument unconstitutional

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and its co-plaintiffs have secured a major First Amendment victory after a federal court’s ruling that a Ten Commandments monument at the Arkansas Capitol is unconstitutional and must be removed.

In a sweeping decision issued late Tuesday, March 31, U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker struck down the state law mandating the monument and ordered that it be taken down, concluding that both the law and the display violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The ruling marks the culmination of nearly eight years of litigation brought by FFRF, the American Humanist Association, the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers and a diverse group of Arkansas plaintiffs alongside a parallel challenge by the ACLU of Arkansas. Separately, the Satanic Temple and its members had brought First Amendment and Equal Protection claims.

“Based on the undisputed record evidence,” the court held, “the Display Act and the Ten Commandments Monument violate the Establishment Clause.” The court further found that the state’s actions failed to avoid “excessive government entanglement with religion” and that the monument was “discriminatory and coercive.”

Arkansas lawmakers passed the Display Act in 2015, spearheaded by then-state Sen. Jason Rapert, to install a privately funded Ten Commandments monument on Capitol grounds. The monument was first installed in 2017, destroyed a day later, and replaced in 2018. Lawsuits followed immediately, challenging the display as an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

The court agreed, emphasizing both the inherently religious nature of the Ten Commandments and the state’s clear preference for Christianity. Evidence showed that Arkansas officials rejected requests from non-Christian groups seeking equal access to place their own monuments, reinforcing the court’s conclusion that the state engaged in unconstitutional religious favoritism. The decision distinguishes Arkansas’ display from monuments upheld in other contexts, noting that this stand-alone religious monument does not reflect a broader historical tradition but instead advances a specific religious message.

“The state of Arkansas has no business telling citizens which gods to worship — or whether to worship at all. The First Commandment is a direct violation of the First Amendment,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “We are delighted the court recognizes that placing a biblical monument at the seat of government violates one of our most fundamental constitutional protections.”

FFRF Senior Counsel Sam Grover adds, “This ruling reaffirms that the government must remain neutral when it comes to religion. That neutrality is essential to protecting the rights of all citizens, regardless of their beliefs.”

“We celebrate this monumental victory for true religious freedom,” says American Humanist Association Legal Director Amitai Heller. “State capitols should be welcoming to all citizens, and this ruling rightfully rejects this effort to promote one specific set of religious beliefs above all others — including the right to not believe at all. This decision affirms the First Amendment’s bedrock constitutional principle of church-state separation, which ensures these very freedoms.”

The plaintiffs in the case reflect a broad cross-section of Arkansans. Anne Orsi — longtime member of FFRF — is an agnostic atheist. Eugene Levy is a rabbi. Gale Stewart is an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.. Teresa Gryder is a Wiccan. All of them have the necessity and occasion to visit the Capitol grounds regularly, and come into contact with the biblical monolith.

The order to remove the monument is stayed pending appeal.

Attorney Gerry Schulze of Little Rock alongside FFRF Senior Counsel Sam Grover, FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott and attorneys from the American Humanist Association represented the plaintiffs.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members and several chapters nationwide, including hundreds of members and a chapter in Arkansas, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.

The post Breaking — FFRF court victory! Federal judge rules Arkansas Ten Commandments monument unconstitutional appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Federal judge orders removal of Ten Commandments display outside Arkansas Capitol

Friendly Atheist
By Hemant Mehta

The post Federal judge orders removal of Ten Commandments display outside Arkansas Capitol appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Okla. taxpayers seek to block unconstitutional religious public school

A group of seven Oklahoma taxpayers — including families with children attending public schools — filed a motion today in federal court seeking to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation.

This religious organization is trying to open the nation’s first religious public charter school in Oklahoma — a clear violation of state and federal law that defines charter schools as public schools that must be secular and open to all students. Like all public schools, charter schools cannot lawfully indoctrinate religion or discriminate. However, Ben Gamla’s charter school application makes clear that Jewish religious teachings will be integrated into “every dimension of . . . life” at the school, including classroom instruction and other activities.

Additionally, Ben Gamla’s application indicates that the school plans to exclude students and staff who do not share its faith. Ben Gamla’s application states: “Admission assumes the student and family willingness to adhere with respect to the beliefs, expectations, policies, and procedures of the school.” Students and families outside that faith would effectively be excluded on the taxpayer’s dime because the school would promote the beliefs of a specific religion. And Ben Gamla’s application further states that the school may base employment decisions on religion.

The public school families are seeking to join the lawsuit, The National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation Inc. v. Drummond, to oppose Ben Gamla’s effort to force Oklahoma to authorize and fund an unconstitutional religious public charter school. They object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will indoctrinate students into a particular religion, in violation of Oklahoma and federal law and our nation’s longstanding commitment to the separation of church and state. They also object to public funds being diverted from their nonreligious and inclusive public schools  — which already face serious resource limitations  — to a religious school that plans to discriminate based on religion. These taxpayers are asking the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to allow them to participate in the case in order to safeguard their interests in public education, religious freedom and church-state separation.

“My family is Jewish. We know firsthand that people of all faiths are best served when public schools don’t impose one idea of religion over others,” says Kara Joy McKee, a proposed intervenor and parent of a public school student. “A religious public charter school would undermine religious freedom and drain tax dollars from schools that are welcoming to students of all faiths, families and backgrounds.”

“Public education is a foundation of our pluralistic society, and it is worth protecting,” says another proposed intervenor Rabbi Dan Kaiman, Principal Rabbi of Congregation B’nai Emunah in Tulsa, Okla., and the parent of two public school students. “I care deeply about Jewish education, but our community does not need or want the government’s help to pass our values on to our children. The separation of church and state is what protects every faith community, including my own.”

The proposed intervenors are represented by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Education Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union. Many of these organizations represented Oklahomans who challenged the first attempt to establish a religious charter school in their state, which the Oklahoma Supreme Court declared unconstitutional two years ago.

“We’re honored to be part of this pushback against religious imposition,” says Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “The public school system must remain secular — and we’ll do our utmost to ensure that.”

“The courts, Oklahoma public school families and taxpayers, and Jewish leaders in the state all have rejected the creation of the nation’s first religious public school,” says Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser. “We’re proud to represent Oklahomans who won’t let a religious organization backed by Christian nationalists strong-arm the people of Oklahoma into violating the Constitution’s promises of religious freedom and church-state separation.”

“Oklahoma kids and families deserve public schools that embrace everyone,” notes Oklahoma Appleseed Interim Executive Director Brent Rowland. “That includes respecting the religious freedom of every child and family rather than imposing a government-supported religious viewpoint on students, regardless of what the viewpoint is. We’re grateful for partners and for Oklahomans who steadfastly insist on religious freedom within every public school — whether neighborhood or charter — and stand against diversion of public school resources to establish religious schools.”

“Our clients are seeking to vindicate the age-old, basic constitutional principle that religious schools can’t be public schools, and public schools can’t be religious,” says Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “That vital protection, guaranteed by both Oklahoma and federal law, helps ensure that public education remains available to all students, free from religious pressure or discrimination.”

“There is a concerted effort underway to demolish the church-state separation and anti-discrimination guarantees that are crucial parts of this nation’s public school system,” says Jessica Levin, litigation director at Education Law Center. “The Oklahoma Supreme Court has declared religious charter schools unconstitutional, but just two years later we must defend against them once more. We will never stop fighting to protect and strengthen the public education opportunities that are the bedrock of our democracy.”

Ben Gamla’s lawsuit was filed less than two weeks after Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond filed a lawsuit in state court arguing that the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board intentionally and improperly manipulated the administrative record of its denial of Ben Gamla’s application in a manner designed to aid Ben Gamla’s litigation position. Concern about statements by a majority of the board’s members expressing disagreement with state law prohibiting religious public charter schools is one reason that the proposed intervenors are seeking to participate in Ben Gamla’s lawsuit.

Americans United Associate Vice President and Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser is the lead attorney for the proposed intervenors, representing them together with Nancy A. Noet and Samuel T. Grover of the Freedom From Religion Foundation; AU Constitutional Litigation Fellow Luke Anderson; Brent Rowland and Morgan Bandy of Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice; Dan Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Jessica Levin, Wendy Lecker, Patrick Cremin and Katrina Reichert of Education Law Center.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 42,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious freedom advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, AU educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. Learn more at www.au.org.

The Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice is a 501(c)3 public interest law firm that fights for the rights and opportunities of every Oklahoman.

Education Law Center (ELC) pursues justice and equity for public school students by enforcing their right to a high-quality education in safe, equitable, nondiscriminatory, integrated and well-funded learning environments. ELC seeks to support and improve public schools as the center of communities and the foundation of a multicultural and multiracial democratic society. Visit edlawcenter.org.

For more than 100 years, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has worked in courts, legislatures, and communities to protect the constitutional rights of all people. With a nationwide network of offices and millions of members and supporters, the ACLU takes on the toughest civil liberties fights in pursuit of liberty and justice for all.

The post Okla. taxpayers seek to block unconstitutional religious public school appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

FFRF applauds federal court dismissal of Johnson Amendment challenge

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is cheering a federal court decision yesterday that dismissed a lawsuit seeking to undermine a longstanding provision of federal law preventing charitable nonprofits from engaging in partisan political activity.

In the March 31 ruling, a federal district court in Texas rejected an attempt by the National Religious Broadcasters  — backed by the federal government — to effectively nullify the Johnson Amendment through a proposed legal settlement. U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker held that the plaintiffs lacked jurisdiction under the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, which bars courts from intervening in disputes over potential tax liability before enforcement occurs.

The decision, for now, prevents a sweeping effort to allow churches to endorse political candidates while retaining their tax-exempt status. This is welcome news for advocates of state/church separation who realize that the proposed settlement would have opened the door to widespread partisan politicking by churches or other tax-exempt organizations. FFRF strongly criticized the IRS’ attempt to openly abandon enforcement of the Johnson Amendment against churches when the agreement was announced last summer.

“We’re pleased the Trump administration’s campaign to undermine the Johnson Amendment has been halted,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Preventing 501(c)(3) organizations — including churches — from using tax-deductible donations for partisan electioneering is simple common sense. Contributions to political candidates aren’t tax-deductible, so nonprofits should not be allowed to funnel tax-exempt donations into politics.”

Adds FFRF Co-President Dan Barker, “Churches, unlike other 501(c)(3) nonprofits such as FFRF, are uniquely exempt from reporting to the IRS on income and expenditures, meaning churches are already financial black holes. Without the Johnson Amendment, the danger is that some churches could essentially become tax-free PACs.”

Earlier this year, the National Council of Nonprofits, along with FFRF, the American Humanist Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Interfaith Alliance, Public Citizen and others, launched a national sign-on letter urging the federal government to preserve the Johnson Amendment. More than 1,800 nonprofits signed the letter, warning that weakening this law invites partisan interests into nonprofit spaces, distorts priorities, and jeopardizes long-standing community trust.

“Nonprofits exist to serve the common good, not partisan politics,” says Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits. “For now, the court has kept in place a foundational protection for the nonprofit sector and the communities we serve. The court’s decision maintains federal protections that keep partisan political manipulation out of charitable organizations, strengthening public confidence in nonprofits at a time when their vital work in communities across the country is more needed than ever.”

The lawsuit, brought by the National Religious Broadcasters with several Texas churches and national Christian groups, argued that the Johnson Amendment violates their First Amendment rights by restricting political speech from the pulpit. In a highly unusual move, the federal government had agreed with the plaintiffs and sought court approval of a settlement that would have barred the IRS from enforcing the law against the specific churches involved. If approved, the agreement would have created a major loophole, allowing houses of worship to engage in partisan campaigning while continuing to receive the benefits of tax-exempt status, effectively transforming them into unregulated political actors subsidized by taxpayers.

Thankfully, the court declined to approve the arrangement. The court also rejected arguments that the case qualified for a narrow exception to the law, noting that it was not “certain” the government would fail on the merits.

Although the ruling leaves open the possibility of future challenges in other forums, it stops, at least for now, a coordinated effort to dismantle a key protection that has been part of the federal tax code since 1954.

“Tax-exempt status is a privilege, not a right,” says Gaylor. “Organizations that choose to engage in partisan politics are free to do so — but they cannot receive special tax benefits while doing it.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.

Read this press release online.

The post FFRF applauds federal court dismissal of Johnson Amendment challenge appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

FFRF and Coalition Intervene to Block Religious Public School Ben Gamla

FFRF and a coalition are seeking to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation. The lawsuit, The National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation Inc. v. Drummond, was brought by a religious organization trying to open the nation’s first religious public charter school in Oklahoma.

The coalition represents a group of seven Oklahoma taxpayers and families with children attending public schools. These plaintiffs oppose Ben Gamla’s effort to force Oklahoma to authorize and fund a religious public charter school. Plaintiffs object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will indoctrinate students into a particular religion. The proposed charter school would be in violation of Oklahoma and as well as federal law. In addition to violating the separation of church and state. Plaintiffs also object to public funds being diverted from their public schools to a religious school that plans to discriminate based on religion. 

FFRF has previously represented Oklahomans who challenged the first attempt to establish a religious charter school in their state. The Oklahoma Supreme Court declared this unconstitutional two years ago.

The intervenor-plaintiffs are represented by Americans United, Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, ACLU, Education Law Center, and FFRF Litigation Attorney Nancy A. Noet and Senior Counsel Sam Grover.

Case Documents

• Motion to Intervene
  • Press Release

The post FFRF and Coalition Intervene to Block Religious Public School Ben Gamla appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Federal Judge Sides With Humanists on Monumental 10 Commandments Victory in Arkansas

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 1, 2026

Contact: Court Beyer, cbeyer@americanhumanist.org

WASHINGTON – The American Humanist Association and its co-plaintiffs have secured a major First Amendment victory after a federal court has ruled that Arkansas’ Ten Commandments monument at the State Capitol is unconstitutional and must be removed.

In a sweeping decision issued late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker struck down the state law mandating the monument and ordered that it be taken down, concluding that both the law and the display violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The ruling marks the culmination of nearly eight years of litigation brought by the American Humanist Association (AHA), The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, and a diverse group of Arkansas plaintiffs, alongside a parallel challenge by the ACLU of Arkansas. Separately, the Satanic Temple and its members had brought First Amendment and Equal Protection claims.

“Based on the undisputed record evidence,” the court held, “the Display Act and the Ten Commandments Monument violate the Establishment Clause.” The court further found that the state’s actions failed to avoid “excessive government entanglement with religion” and that the monument was “discriminatory and coercive.”

Arkansas lawmakers passed the Display Act in 2015, spearheaded by then-State Sen. Jason Rapert, to install a privately funded Ten Commandments monument on Capitol grounds. The monument was first installed in 2017, destroyed a day later, and replaced in 2018. Lawsuits followed immediately, challenging the display as an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

The court agreed, emphasizing both the inherently religious nature of the Ten Commandments and the state’s clear preference for Christianity. Evidence showed that Arkansas officials rejected requests from non-Christian groups seeking equal access to place their own monuments, reinforcing the court’s conclusion that the state engaged in unconstitutional religious favoritism.

The decision distinguishes Arkansas’ display from monuments upheld in other contexts, noting that this stand-alone religious monument does not reflect a broader historical tradition but instead advances a specific religious message.

“We celebrate this monumental victory for true religious freedom,” said American Humanist Association Legal Director Amitai Heller. “State capitals should be welcoming to all citizens, and this ruling rightfully rejects this effort to promote one specific set of religious beliefs above all others – including the right to not believe at all. This decision affirms the First Amendment’s bedrock constitutional principle of church-state separation, which ensures these very freedoms.”

“The state of Arkansas has no business telling citizens which gods to worship — or whether to worship at all. The First Commandment is a direct violation of the First Amendment,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “We are delighted the court recognizes that placing a biblical monument at the seat of government violates one of our most fundamental constitutional protections.”

FFRF Senior Counsel Sam Grover adds, “This ruling reaffirms that the government must remain neutral when it comes to religion. That neutrality is essential to protecting the rights of all citizens, regardless of their beliefs.”

The plaintiffs in the case reflect a broad cross-section of Arkansans. Anne Orsi is an agnostic atheist. Eugene Levy is a rabbi. Gale Stewart is an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.. Teresa Gryder is a Wiccan. All of them have the necessity and occasion to visit the Capitol grounds regularly, and come into contact with the biblical monolith.

The order to remove the monument is stayed pending appeal.

Attorney Gerry Schulze of Little Rock, alongside attorneys from the AHA and FFRF, represented the plaintiffs.

###

The American Humanist Association (AHA) works to protect the rights of humanists, atheists, and other nontheistic Americans. The AHA advances the ethical and life-affirming worldview of humanism, which—without beliefs in gods or other supernatural forces—encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The post Federal Judge Sides With Humanists on Monumental 10 Commandments Victory in Arkansas appeared first on American Humanist Association.

FFRF: Supreme Court conversion therapy ruling will harm children

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chiles v. Salazar unfortunately has handed another victory to litigants who continue to use our courts to mold the law to reflect their religious beliefs.

A Christian therapist, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, orchestrated a legal challenge to a Colorado law that banned licensed medical professionals from performing conversion therapy on children. Conversion therapy is the widely condemned practice of trying to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity/expression to conform to heterosexual and cisgender norms. In a 8-1 decision, the court ruled against Colorado’s law.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the court’s opinion, which held that the conversion therapy regulation in Colorado restricted the speech of the therapist and is therefore subject to the highest First Amendment scrutiny.

“This is a disappointing decision, which likely will lead to further harm to children,” says Freedom From Religion Foundation Legal Director Patrick Elliott. “This case continues the trend of the Supreme Court favoring religious litigants under the guise of free speech.”

In its friend-of-the-court brief, FFRF argued that this case was yet another example of the Supreme Court improperly allowing religious litigants to use hypothetical and even insincere legal injuries in support of lawsuits designed to strike down laws based on nothing more than religious or ideological objections. This has been an alarming trend in recent years, and religious parties are now regularly obtaining sweeping legal precedents that are weaponizing their faith against vulnerable groups, especially the LGBTQ+ community.

Last term, the Supreme Court concluded that gender-affirming care like puberty blockers and hormone therapy can be regulated (and even banned completely) because they include more traditional health care like medication and needles. However, since conversion therapy is accomplished through talking, the court found it is not traditional health care, but “speech,” which cannot be regulated in the same way.

Although the court acknowledged that laws can regulate conduct in ways only incidentally having an impact on speech, the majority concluded that “all Ms. Chiles does is speak — and, as far as she is concerned, speech is all Colorado seeks to regulate.” As a result, the majority held that the law must be subject to strict scrutiny — a legal standard that is nearly impossible to meet.

“This conclusion is both preposterous and dangerous,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Health care, whether it involves physical procedures or mental health therapy, should be regulated based on its safety and efficacy, not religious ideology or preference.”

The lone dissenter in the Chiles decision, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, agrees. As she notes, “Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed health care professional.” Jackson points out that Colorado’s law “treats the talk-therapy form of conversion therapy as a prohibited medical treatment” and “all that Colorado’s law proscribes is the provision of such therapy to minors.” Jackson explains that “states can regulate the medical treatments health care professionals provide to patients without running afoul of the First Amendment, even if the regulation applies to and restricts speech based on its content.” Her dissent ends with a warning about what the majority opinion could mean:

Ultimately, because the majority plays with fire in this case, I fear that the people of this country will get burned. Before now, licensed medical professionals had to adhere to standards when treating patients: They could neither do nor say whatever they want. Largely due to such state regulation, Americans have been privileged to enjoy a long and successful tradition of high-quality medical care. … To put it bluntly, the court could be ushering in an era of unprofessional and unsafe medical care administered by effectively unsupervised health care providers. 

As Jacky Chu, a medical student at Stanford University School of Medicine and a public health student at UC Berkeley, writes, “Scientific consensus is clear: Conversion therapy efforts are not only ineffective, they significantly increase a person’s risk for depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal ideation.” As a result, every major mental health and medical association has condemned the practice. Following the Chiles decision, however, conversion therapy might not only continue, it could do so virtually unchecked by any standard of care.

The Supreme Court has done a major disservice in its decision today to the counseling profession — and to the American population at large.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is the largest national association of freethinkers, representing atheists, agnostics, and others who form their opinions about religion based on reason, rather than faith, tradition, or authority. Founded nationally in 1978 as a 501(c) (3) nonprofit, FFRF has more than 41,000 members nationwide, with members in every state and the District of Columbia. 

The post FFRF: Supreme Court conversion therapy ruling will harm children appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

FFRF: Utah’s bible mandate targets young students with religious agenda

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is castigating a newly enacted Utah law that will require public school students — beginning as early as third grade — to study bible passages as part of the state’s social studies curriculum.

Under HB312, signed into law last week by Gov. Spencer Cox, Utah public schools must incorporate selected bible passages referenced or “alluded to” in U.S. historical documents into required classroom instruction for students in grades three through 12. The law directs the state to embed these passages into core social studies standards, with implementation set for the 2028–29 school year.

“Our Constitution, not the bible, is the foundation of American law,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “The Constitution makes no mention of a god or religion, much less any ‘allusions’ to the bible. Its principles are what students should be studying, such as why the First Amendment bars religious tests for public office and government establishment of religion.”

Gaylor called the new law a “mischief-making Christian nationalist piece of legislation intended to prey on the youngest captive audience of school children by deliberately giving them the false impression that our country is based on religion. It is an affront to the history of the secular roots of our nation.”

The law requires instruction to “focus … on religious texts’ literary forms, historical context, and documented influence on American civic thought and the state’s founding history rather than on theological or doctrinal questions.” But FFRF warns that requiring teachers to present and interpret biblical passages, particularly to students as young as third graders, will inevitably blur the line between education and religious endorsement.

The law risks creating confusion, division and constitutional violations in classrooms. Teachers will be placed in the untenable position of presenting religious texts in a way that puts the focus on the bible, instead of U.S. history. Students and families who are not religious may feel marginalized or coerced. Utah is home to a religiously diverse population, including millions of residents who are atheist, agnostic or religiously unaffiliated, as well as adherents of non-Christian and non-Mormon faiths.

“This law mandates the inclusion of religious scripture in public school instruction — and it does so in an unprecedented way,” says FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott. “We are not aware of another state requiring bible instruction through statute this broadly and in this level of detail.”

The standards will not be implemented until 2028, but FFRF will be closely monitoring its rollout.

FFRF is urging Utah parents with concerns about this curriculum to contact the organization.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with more than 41,000 members and several chapters nationwide, including hundreds of members in Utah and a chapter in Salt Lake City. FFRF’s purposes are to defend the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

The post FFRF: Utah’s bible mandate targets young students with religious agenda appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

American Humanists React to SCOTUS Decision on Conversion Therapy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 31, 2026

Contact: Court Beyer, cbeyer@americanhumanist.org

WASHINGTON – The following is a statement from American Humanist Association Executive Director Fish Stark in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority decision to reject Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors:

“The Court’s decision is completely divorced from reality. The documented psychological consequences of conversion therapy are severe. Words exchanged in the context of a psychological relationship land with the weight of professional authority – and this is especially true for patients who are minors. Telling a gay teenager that their identity is something to be ‘fixed’ is not a neutral opinion – it is harmful pseudoscience.”

Amitai Heller, Legal Director at the American Humanist Association, added the following:

“Today’s decision sacrifices the health and well being of children on the altar of religious bigotry and homophobia in the medical profession. We must acknowledge that children are independent human beings with rights of their own. At a minimum, this must include the right to evidence-based, compassionate care without the imposition of a provider’s religious or bigoted viewpoint.”

###

The American Humanist Association (AHA) works to protect the rights of humanists, atheists, and other nontheistic Americans. The AHA advances the ethical and life-affirming worldview of humanism, which—without beliefs in gods or other supernatural forces—encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The post American Humanists React to SCOTUS Decision on Conversion Therapy appeared first on American Humanist Association.