Axis of Nonsense, Founding Father Myths, and Empathy Debates | The Atheist Experience 30.18

She likes to meet people

FFRF denounces final approval of bible-infused Texas reading list

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is appalled at the Texas State Board of Education’s decision to move forward with a state-mandated reading list that privileges Christian Scripture.

The board has given the green light to the list in accordance with a recent legislative mandate. House Bill 1605, passed in 2023, required the creation of a K-12 reading list and directed the Texas Education Agency to develop state-owned textbooks. The board approved those textbooks, known as Bluebonnet Learning, in late 2024, and the state is currently working to correct roughly 4,200 errors in the materials. Meanwhile, Texas public schools will require the bible-infused reading list to be available to students beginning in 2030. What will this look like? Middle and high school students will be asked to read two main books each year from the approved list, along with other related poems, speeches, historical texts and biblical excerpts.

Public schools exist to educate students with diverse faith backgrounds, as well as those who adhere to no faith doctrine. Public schools are not Sunday schools, and elected officials have no business using state power to elevate one religion above all others. A required reading list that overwhelmingly favors Christian texts while excluding the writings and literary traditions of other faiths, not to mention the perspectives of millions of nonreligious Americans, sends an unmistakable message about who belongs and who does not.

The U.S. Constitution mandates government neutrality on matters of religion. Teaching about religion as history or literature can be appropriate when done objectively and without endorsement. However, compelling every student to read a curated selection of bible passages and Christian parables, while giving little or no comparable treatment to other traditions, crosses the line from education into religious promotion. Critics, including Jewish scholars and clergy, have already warned that the state’s invocation of “Judeo-Christian” values misrepresents Judaism while advancing a distinctly Christian worldview.

The board should be focusing on improving literacy, expanding access to diverse literature and ensuring students receive an appropriate, academically rigorous education. Instead, state officials are inserting themselves into religious questions that belong to families and faith communities, but not the government.

“A mandatory public school reading list should never function as a bible lesson,” says FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Texas is telling millions of children that one religion deserves the government’s seal of approval, while everyone else is an afterthought. That’s government-sponsored religious favoritism — and the First Amendment strictly forbids it.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and the FFRF Action Fund will continue to oppose efforts that erode students’ and families’ constitutional rights. Religious freedom means that every student is free to practice, or not practice, religion without government pressure or favoritism. That guarantee is fundamental to both public education and American democracy.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 41,000 members and several chapters nationwide, including more than 1,700 members and a chapter in Texas. 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 denounces final approval of bible-infused Texas reading list appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The 11 CRAZIEST Things Mormons Are Taught

Do you count?

White Christian Nationalists aren’t honoring our past. They’re trapping us in old prejudices and power structures.

The post Do you count? appeared first on American Atheists.

Texas just made Bible reading mandatory in public schools

This newsletter is free and goes out to over 24,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo or PayPal.

Subscribe now

On Friday, the Texas State Board of Education officially mandated Bible readings in public schools as part of a revised curriculum. The Republican-dominated board voted 9-5 to include Christian stories in a longer required reading list—while excluding stories from any other major religion that teach similar lessons.

It’s not a surprise that it happened, but it’s still disappointing.

While conservatives claim this isn’t about indoctrination, the message is clear: Texas thinks Christianity is the only religion that matters. As if we didn’t already know that when the same lawmakers passed laws forcing the Ten Commandments to go up in every classroom and allowing schools to hire chaplains to counsel students. This is the same Board that approved a separate state-approved reading and language arts curriculum for public schools that was filled with biblical references (and errors).

And it’s not just me saying this. The people who advocated for the new reading list sure as hell saw this as a way to advertise Christianity:

Board member Brandon Hall during a news conference Thursday called the proposals a “generational opportunity” to overhaul the state curriculum.

“We’re going to stop watering down American history. We’re going to teach the truth. Our nation was founded as a Christian nation, and Texas is a Christian state,” said Hall, a Republican who is a pastor in Springtown. He said the Bible has had a “remarkable impact on our culture, our societies and our laws.”

…

“We don’t have to incorporate every religious belief in our history or in our literary works, because our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values,” said Susan Perez, founder of a Christian parent advocacy group, Citizens for Education Reform, in a school board meeting Monday.

There’s a very good argument that could be made for teaching children about the Bible in the name of cultural literacy. Without knowing the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, for example, you may miss out on a lot of references made in literature, art, and pop culture. But not every story in the Bible is relevant, even in that context. Furthermore, Texas is even using the Bible to teach otherwise generic lessons like humility and love. They’re also using the Bible as supportive material for other books, as if you can’t understand the Diary of Anne Frank or Elie Wiesel’s Night without knowing the Christian references.

The full list can be seen here. It includes:

• 1st Grade: Noah’s Ark by Peter Spier

• 2nd Grade: David and Goliath (excerpt from The Children’s Book of Heroes) by William J. Bennett (editor)

• 3rd Grade: ROAR! – Daniel and the Lion’s Den – Children’s Adapted Version by CBN [Christian Broadcasting Network]

• 4th Grade: The Necessity of Humility (Book of Luke, Chapter 14, Verses 7- 11) – New International Reader’s Version: New Testament

• 5th Grade: Moses (Book of Exodus, Chapter 3: The Burning Bush and Book of Exodus, Chapter 14: The Parting of the Red Sea) – New International Reader’s Version: Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

• 6th Grade: Do Not Be Anxious (Book of Matthew, Chapter 6, Verses 25- 34) English Standard Version: New Testament (This is included in lessons for All Creatures Great and Small by James Herriot)

• 7th Grade: The Shepherd’s Psalm (Book of Psalms, Chapter 23) King James Version: Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (This is included in lessons for The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank)

• 7th Grade: The Eight Beatitudes (Book of Matthew, Chapter 5 Verses 1- 12) King James Version: New Testament (This is included in lessons for The Outsiders by S. E. Hinton.)

• 8th Grade: To Everything There is a Season (Book of Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3) King James Version: Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (This is included in lessons for The Giver by Lois Lowry.)

• 8th Grade: Book of Lamentations, Chapter 3 Tanakh: Jewish Publication Society 1917 (This is included in lessons for Night by Elie Wiesel.)

• 9th Grade: Parable of the Prodigal Son (Book of Luke, Chapter 15, Verses 11-32) English Standard Translation: New Testament (This is included in lessons for Great Expectations by Charles Dickens.)

• 10th Grade: The Book of Job (Book of Job, Chapters 1-7,11,14,19,28,38-42) New International Reader’s Version: Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (This is included in lessons for Dante’s Inferno.)

• 11th Grade: Adam and Eve (Book of Genesis, Chapters 2 and 3 New International Reader’s Version: Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (This is included in lessons for The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne.)

• 12th Grade: The Definition of Love (Book of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 13) English Standard Version: New Testament (This is included in lessons for Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.)

Educators will now have a few years to work the new material into their lessons:

On Friday, board members decided to stagger implementation of the reading list: elementary school students will see the new standards in the 2030-31 school year, sixth graders in the 2031-32 school year, seventh and eighth graders in the 2032-33 school year, and high school students in the 2033-34 school year.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State said this was an effort “to misuse public schools to impose one narrow set of religious beliefs and indoctrinate a new generation of Americans in the lie that America is a Christian country.” The Freedom From Religion Foundation was even more blunt:

A required reading list that overwhelmingly favors Christian texts while excluding the writings and literary traditions of other faiths, not to mention the perspectives of millions of nonreligious Americans, sends an unmistakable message about who belongs and who does not.

… compelling every student to read a curated selection of bible passages and Christian parables, while giving little or no comparable treatment to other traditions, crosses the line from education into religious promotion.

The question now is whether all this will be taught objectively. Will Christian teachers in public schools be able to resist the temptation to tell kids these stories reflect reality? What happens to students whose parents don’t want them to receive religious lessons? Keep in mind that, because these readings are required, they could also be seen on standardized tests, which means students who aren’t familiar with them could see that reflected in their scores.

Even beyond the biblical infusion here, this required list hamstrings the ability of teachers and school districts to decide what materials their students should read. If they’re forced to teach certain books, it limits their ability to include anything beyond that. The focus on certain “classic” books is also drawing scrutiny because of the lack of diversity in authors and lack of contemporary novels on the list.

There may be a silver lining to all this, though, as noted by a Catholic priest on CNN:

“And, you know, as a priest, I have to tell you… forced scripture doesn’t deepen faith. I think it breeds resentment when the state and not a family or a teacher decides which Bible passages children must read, I think something sacred’s been handed to politics,” he continued.

Anytime you force kids to read the Bible, some of them are going to realize the stories are fictional. They’re going to tell their friends. They’re going to ask the teachers uncomfortable questions. There’s no greater tool for atheism than the Bible. That doesn’t make what they’re doing in Texas okay, but they clearly haven’t thought this one through.

And what happens if teachers tell students these stories are fictional? Or incorporate additional material, like Greek mythology, to reinforce the lessons? There are going to be Christian parents who don’t like how these lessons are taught.

There will inevitably be lawsuits, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they come from Bible-loving parents who don’t appreciate how public schools aren’t giving their holy book the deference they think it deserves.

And what happens if Texas, which is ranked 29th in the country when it comes to K-12 education (by one metric), gets worse after implementing this reading curriculum?

This is what it looks like, though, when right-wing activists use the government to elevate one religion—their religion—over all others. Texas isn’t just acknowledging that the Bible has influenced Western culture; it’s requiring kids to embrace Christianity in a way it’s denying all other faiths and traditions.

But once the Bible becomes just another piece of assigned text, it loses the aura of holiness. Students are going to have questions and some parents will surely regret that they’re asking their public school teachers instead of their pastors. Kids are going to notice contradictions. They’re going to read about a burning bush, and a talking snake, and God’s cruelty (with Job) and they’re going to realize this book they’ve been raised to revere is full of bullshit.

If conservatives think mandatory Bible reading will create more Christians, they haven’t been paying attention to what actually happens when young people are encouraged to read the book critically instead of devotionally.

That may be the greatest failure of this entire stunt. Critics already have a few years to put together material to contextualize the Bible lessons in a way Christians aren’t going to like. The fact that we’re even having this conversation is a sign of failure. After all, if your religion has to be propped up by state mandates, it’s an admission your religion can’t survive on its own.

FFRF appeals court brief backs religious classroom display restrictions

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending a Connecticut school district’s ability to prevent teachers from religious classroom displays.

The case before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals involving the Consolidated School District of New Britain centers around a crucifix hung on a classroom wall by middle school teacher Marisol Arroyo-Castro. The crucifix was placed in plain view of Arroyo-Castro’s students and among relevant classroom displays, such as computer operation instructions, a student daily schedule, and a poster for a social studies textbook. When the district asked her to remove the crucifix from the classroom wall and move it to a location where it would not be visible to students, Arroyo-Castro refused. After trying to work with Arroyo-Castro to find a suitable accommodation, the district issued a letter of reprimand and then a two-day suspension. The district ultimately placed Arroyo-Castro on paid administrative leave due to her insistence upon leaving the crucifix in a visible location on her classroom wall. She then filed suit in the Connecticut Federal District Court, arguing that the district’s request to remove the crucifix violated her First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise rights.

In her opinion denying Arroyo-Castro’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the district, Judge Sarah F. Russell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut applied the Supreme Court’s Garcetti test to Arroyo-Castro’s Free Speech claim. The “Garcetti test” is what courts use to determine if a government employee’s Free Speech rights are violated. Under the test, the district court said that Arroyo-Castro was not entitled to Free Speech protection because the display of the crucifix on her classroom wall was speech made as part of her official duties as a government employee.

The district court also applied the Garcetti framework to Arroyo-Castro’s Free Exercise claim.

“Ms. Castro’s Free Exercise and Free Speech claims fully overlap in the sense that the religious exercise that Ms. Castro says is infringed is necessarily communicative,” the judge wrote. “Under these circumstances, the Free Exercise Clause does not compel the district to communicate a religious message.”

FFRF’s brief argues that the district court correctly applied Garcetti’s official duties test to Arroyo-Castro’s Free Exercise challenge. The Court of Appeals shouldn’t grant government employees, including public school teachers, carte blanche to say, do or display anything they want on government property so long as it’s in the name of their religion.

“Speech does not cease to be speech simply because its topic concerns religion,” the brief reads. “To apply the ‘official duties’ test to Arroyo-Castro’s Free Speech claim and not her Free Exercise claim would allow subversion of this doctrine if — and only if — the speech in question is religious.”

Should the 2nd Circuit decline to apply Garcetti to the Free Exercise claim, FFRF points out the dangerous precedent that ruling would set: “Under such a rule, a teacher would be permitted to tell their students that Muhammad is the one true prophet or that they should fast during Ramadan, but could be fired for sharing who she thinks is the best political candidate in an upcoming election.”

“This is a straightforward case,” says FFRF Senior Litigation Counsel Sam Grover. “The school district, not Arroyo-Castro, gets to decide what messages are communicated on classroom walls. Arroyo-Castro should lose simply because she wants to promote her personal religious beliefs on government property. No teacher has that right.”

FFRF Anne Nicol Gaylor Legal Fellow Kyle Steinberg drafted FFRF’s brief and Senior Litigation Counsel Sam Grover served as Counsel of Record.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 41,000 members nationwide, including nearly 500 members in Connecticut. 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 appeals court brief backs religious classroom display restrictions appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Freethought Radio – June 25, 2026

We first get the lowdown on the back and forth that Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., has gotten into with the Freedom From Religion Foundation regarding our objection to the Auburn University men’s baseball program being suffused with religion. Then, we listen to writer Chrissy Stroop talk about her journey from evangelical schools to leading counternarratives about the Christian right.

The post Freethought Radio – June 25, 2026 appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The 11 CRAZIEST Things Mormons Are Taught

Texas judge who refused to perform same-sex weddings wins $640,000 reward for her bigotry

This newsletter is free and goes out to over 24,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo or PayPal.

Subscribe now

An anti-LGBTQ judge from Texas has been rewarded $640,000 for (1) refusing to do her job and (2) being Christian. It’s the culmination of a multi-year crusade by a conservative activist in a position of power.

Back in December of 2019, Justice of The Peace Dianne Hensley refused to marry gay couples who visited her courthouse, even though she’s a public official and not a priest. She was given a public warning by the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct… which was really nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Instead of removing her from the job she refused to do, though, the Commission merely said she was “casting doubt on her capacity to act impartially” and that she could be punished in the future.

Hensley responded by suing the Commission because how dare anyone point out her Christian bigotry.

In its lawsuit, First Liberty argues, “The Commission violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act by investigating and punishing Judge Hensley for recusing herself from officiating at same-sex weddings, in accordance with the commands of her Christian faith.” Adding, “By investigating and punishing her for acting in accordance with the commands of her Christian faith, the State of Texas has substantially burdened the free exercise of her religion, with no compelling justification.”

No “compelling justification”?! The compelling justification was that people deserve to be treated equally under the law. A judge who offered to perform wedding ceremonies for straight couples but not gay ones had no business being a judge. Being Christian shouldn’t allow government officials to ignore the law. It wasn’t okay when Kim Davis tried the stunt, and it shouldn’t have been okay with Hensley.

And “substantially burdened”?! In no way did the Commission impede on her rights.

She was asking for $10,000 in damages because that was the money she was losing by not being allowed to perform opposite-sex weddings. (Not performing any weddings was the only legal option she had at that point.) She also requested a declaration that everyone in her position could pull the same stunt if their God commanded it.

In 2021, a judge tossed out her case on technicalities, including the fact that the commission had sovereign immunity from such lawsuits. An appeals court later affirmed that ruling. But Hensley asked the state’s highest court to take up the case, and that’s what they did in 2023.

Her lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell—better known as the former state solicitor general behind Texas’ infamous abortion “bounty” law—argued that she had every right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation:

Mitchell further argued that state law protects people’s religious freedom unless there is a “furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.” He also said it prohibits wedding officiants from discriminating based on race, national origin or religion.

“Notably absent from that list of protected criteria that I just mentioned is any mention of discrimination on account of sex or sexual orientation,” Mitchell told justices. “It’s still permissible for wedding officiants — whether they’re judges or members of the clergy — to discriminate based on any other characteristic, as long as it’s not race, national origin or religion, when they decide which weddings they will officiate.”

Being a Christian, you see, allowed Hensley to be an anti-LGBTQ bigot, just not a racist one… even though both involve characteristics that people don’t choose for themselves.

The thing is: Hensley could have avoided this entire situation if she simply opted out of performing marriages and didn’t whine about it. No one was forcing her to perform that service. But she wanted the ability to get paid to sign marriage certificates for straight couples and not gay ones, and she believed her religion took priority over the law, even though she was working for the government. If we allow officials like her to pick and choose which rules to follow, it would throw the government into chaos. It would make a mockery out of civil rights.

As the commission’s lawyer explained, no one was punishing, or even threatening to punish, Hensley for her religious views. It was all about her actions. If a Christian judge made it clear that he didn’t want to perform any marriages because of his anti-gay bigotry, that would be just fine. Hensley, however, wanted to offer the service while excluding certain people. That was the problem.

(Side note: In an interview with The Dallas Morning News in late 2023, Hensley said she hadn’t performed any marriages in years. She also claimed, falsely, that children with opposite-sex parents fare better in life. Then there was this anecdote about her now-deceased gay (!) brother:

After he had a falling out with their parents over what she described as “economics,” Hensley said she hired a detective to track him down once a year and take a photograph as a gift for their mother. One year, he was in Paris. Another year in Japan. Then Dubai.

Creepy.)

In any case, if Hensley wanted to get ordained and perform private wedding ceremonies just for straight, white, evangelical couples, no one would be complaining. But she had no business discriminating against certain Texans when she was working for the government.

Her lawyers argued that the U.S. Supreme Court already sided with a Colorado website designer who refused to make wedding websites for gay couples (something no gay person actually asked her to do). But there was an obvious difference between a private business owner and a government official. Her own attorneys chose not to understand that difference.

The concern over what the Texas Supreme Court would do was very real. After all, if she won, what would stop other judges from using religion as an excuse to deny justice to other potential clients?

But the case never really got resolved after that.

The Texas Supreme Court avoided her religious freedom argument, then the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct dismissed its (already mild) sanctions on Hensley, then an appeals court said she could still proceed with her lawsuit… it was a hot mess with no end in sight. And while all that was happening, another bigoted Christian judge filed his own lawsuit for the same underlying reasons.

At some point, the Texas Supreme Court was going to have to make a decision.

Last year, they did just that. They issued an edict saying it was perfectly fine for judges to refuse to perform same-sex weddings if that conflicted with their personal religious beliefs. More importantly, that act of open bigotry wouldn’t be treated as evidence that those judges have any animosity against LGBTQ people.

How did they make the change? The Court altered the state’s judicial conduct code—the ethics rules for judges—by saying “It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief.”

Canon 4, by the way, is a set of rules dictating how judges should act in their free time so that people have no reason to doubt their impartiality in cases. It includes common sense items like how judges can join non-profit groups but not if those groups are likely to appear before the court. But now, all eight justices said, another item could be added to that list: There was no violation of the ethical rules if judges refused to perform weddings because their religion says those couples are sinning.

It wasn’t a ruling on her case. It was just a coincidental rule change… that gave Hensley everything she ever wanted. It also raised a number of other ethical questions. For example, couldn’t that same edict be used to allow judges to avoid ethical consequences if they refused to perform wedding ceremonies for mixed-race couples, or mixed-religion couples, as long as their bigotry stemmed from their faith? What about people who had sex before marriage if pre-marital abstinence was a principle of their religion?

And even if the ethical code for judges now permitted faith-based bigotry, it didn’t change the law itself. Which meant that if a gay couple went to a Texas court to get married, and a judge refused to sign off on it because of his or her faith, the gay couple could still file a lawsuit against that judge.

The entire situation left gay couples in Texas in a bind. On paper, they were free to get married if they chose to. But the state’s highest court now said judges who didn’t want to perform the ceremony and sign the necessary documents were free to do so.

It was state-sanctioned discrimination.

In any case, Hensley has already moved on to the profit stage of this particular grift.

On Friday, the District Court of Travis County announced that Hensley would receive the $10,000 in damages along with $630,000 in legal fees, paid by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. (No wonder her lawyers with First Liberty are celebrating.) Meanwhile, other similar cases are still moving through the courts because plenty of other right-wing judges also want to get rich off of their hate.

“Although the Hensley litigation has concluded, the Commission is still facing a statewide class-action lawsuit on behalf of justices of the peace who were unwilling to perform same-sex marriages and stopped performing weddings entirely to avoid disciplinary action from the Commission,” First Liberty Institute added. “The class action is seeking damages in the tens of millions of dollars for income lost by justices of the peace throughout the state.”

Yes, why won’t anyone think about the poor justices of the peace who refuse to follow the law and can’t perform their side hustle…?

Naturally, her team thanked Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (now a scandal-prone candidate for U.S. Senate) for his guidance:

“Judge Hensley always adhered to the law and the legal guidance provided by the Attorney General of Texas,” said Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel for First Liberty Institute. “We are grateful that this case has concluded and that Judge Hensley was vindicated.”

Hensley’s “victory” here amounts to a declaration that prejudice is perfectly compatible with public service as long as you’re Christian. Instead of standing for equality under the law, people like Hensley have decided religion—and realistically, only their religion—supersedes the rules everyone else has to follow. All so that they can further discriminate against people who are already struggling to protect their rights across the state.

Hensley, by the way, filed a separate federal lawsuit last December urging the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. I guess she figures she’s on a roll when it comes to harming gay couples, so she may as well keep going.

(Portions of this article were published earlier)