The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency recently released a report related to the Donald Trump’s administration’s efforts to prevent banks from discriminating against persons and organizations for their political and religious beliefs, and conservative activists have been citing the report as evidence that banks have been discriminating against Christians.

A few examples from news articles, some directed at conservative Christians:

🟪 Daily Citizen headline: Big Banks Discriminate Against Christians and Conservatives, New Report Finds

🟪 Breaking Christian News headline: These Major Banks Targeted Christians, Trump Supporters

🟪 Unmuzzled News headline: Treasury Report Exposed the Scheme to Shut Down Christian Groups Bank Accounts

🟪 Religion Unplugged headline: Christian Groups Among Those Cited As ‘Reputational Risks’ By Banks

Are such claims supported by the facts? Let’s see:

Truth verdict: ❓

The report, released earlier this month, sharply criticizes banks for using “reputational risk” as a factor in deciding whether to provide loans and providing other banking services, and it found that the use of that factor “disadvantaged certain Americans based on their political, religious or social views or based on their lawful business activities.” However, the report offers scant evidence, at the most, that banking decisions were made based on Christian beliefs of customers, and the report cites no examples where such decisions were allegedly made solely because of Christian beliefs of connections.

Of course, just because the report doesn’t offer firm evidence of anti-Christian discrimination doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened; the best that can be said is that the report is inconclusive.

The report was based on an analysis of the practices of the nine largest U.S. banks from the beginning of 2020 to September 2025. The OCC said it reviewed reviewed nearly 100,000 complaints, hundreds of individual bank decisions and about 420,000 pages of bank documents.

What the report does show, at the least, is that banks are skittish about providing banking services to businesses, nonprofits or other organizations that are controversial. And while the emphasis in the report is on anti-conservative bias, it does acknowledge that that the anti-controversy stance can cut both ways as banks sometimes deny services to both liberal and conservative groups.

These are among the examples of discrimination the report cited:

🟪 A payment processor closed the account of merchant selling pro-Trump merchandise such as MAGA hats.

🟪 A bank declined to provide financial services to a public education organization because its political arm endorsed only Democrats.

🟪 The policies of one bank prevented it from providing services to those whose policies on firearms differed from the bank’s stance.

🟪 A bank subsidiary denied services to a legal advocacy organization because it had been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.1

🟪 A bank had a policy of not providing services to partisan organizations. While the policy “appears to have been applied consistently to organizations on both sides of the political spectrum, [the bank] ultimately declined to provide financial services to organizations merely for the constitutionally protected views the organizations espouse.” It did provide services to bipartisan groups, however.

Overall, the report makes a strong argument that banks having policies against doing business with groups that might harm the bank’s reputation can lead to banks making arbitrary decisions because of the customers’ political, social and religious beliefs. The OCC also suggested that it has pressured banks to tighten their policies to make them less arbitrary, and it has adopted rules designed to make discrimination less likely.

The OCC is continuing to investigate alleged discrimination, and it is asking that those who believe they were discriminated against for religious or other reasons to report such incidents to http://www.helpwithmybank.gov.

Voters in eight states will voting in this year’s Nov. 3 election on two issues important to conservative Christian activists: abortion and transgender restrictions. Voters in scattered states across the country have voted in recent years on abortion proposals ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, but this will be the first time that voters in any statewide election have had their say on laws affecting transgender persons.

The two measures that have drawn the most attention, partly because of campaign spending totaling millions of dollars, are an initiative in Washington state that would prevent biological males from participating in female-only sports, potentially enforced through medical exams, and an initiative in Idaho that would replace that state’s strict abortion ban with a law allowing abortions up until the age of viability.

In both cases, backers of the initiatives are hoping to get voting support beyond their regular political bases: Backers of the trans ban in blue Washington are hoping that even liberal voters will see as extreme the participation of biological males in female sports, while backers of the Idaho abortion measure are aware that they could be fighting an uphill battle in a religiously and politically conservative state.

Colorado’s initiative has goals similar to Washington’s, while voters in Missouri and Arizona will be voting on trans measures with less impact.

According to Ballotpedia, as of April there were 27 states that had passed laws requiring limiting participation based on sex for gender-specific sports teams, and another two states have similar requirements mandated by state regulatory agencies. Some of the requirements have been struck down by courts. The remaining 21 states have no laws or other legal requirements limiting such participation.

Like the measure in Idaho, measures in Nevada and Virginia would recognize the right to an abortion. A measure in Missouri takes the opposite approach, proposing to ban most abortions.

Here’s a closer look at what the eight states will be deciding:

Arizona: Proposition 318 targets restrooms and similar facilities

Arizona already has a law preventing biological males (as defined) from participating on female sports teams, but it does allow females to compete on male teams. Proposition 318 would change that latter provision, keeping females off male teams.

But the main purpose of the measure would be to prohibit schools from authorizing a student, athlete, employee or any other individual to use a restroom, locker room, shower room or other private space that is not designated for that person’s sex. Sex is defined as the “biological status as male or female as recorded at birth on the individual’s original birth certificate.”

Campaigning on the measure has been low-key. According to the most recent reports, supporters have raised only about $3,600, while opponents have raised about $206,000.

Colorado: Proposition 134 would affect student athletes through college age

Colorado Proposition 134, known formally as the Sex Requirement for School and College Sports Initiative, is designed to regulate school sports for kindergarten age through college. It would allow the creation of male, female and coed teams; only males as defined could participate in male sports, and only females in female sports.

The proposed law defines a female as someone “whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of ova” and a male as someone “whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of sperm.” The proposal does not state how the determination would be made, leaving it up individual schools or school districts to decide that.

At last report, supporters had raised about $216,000 for their campaign. They are far outmatched by opponents, who have raised about $4.6 million.

Idaho: Proposition 1 aims to guarantee reproductive freedom

Idaho has one of the strictest abortion laws in the country, allowing abortion only to save the life of a pregnant woman or in cases of rape or incest. Supporters of the proposition claim that the law has made it difficult for the largely rural state to attract OB-GYN doctors and other health professionals who deal with pregnancy. They also claim that not allowing abortions to protect the mother’s health or in cases of severe fetal defects puts women in danger.

The proposed law says that its purpose is to establish a “right to make private reproductive health care decisions, including abortion up to fetal viability and in medical emergencies.”

Religious groups that are formally opposing the initiative include the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. The LDS church donated $1 million to the main group fighting the initiative, Too Extreme for Idaho.

At last report, supporters of the proposition had raised $4.3 million, and opponents had raised $3.4 million, making this one of the most expensive non-candidate campaigns among the less populated states.

Missouri: Amendment 3 tackles both abortion and gender transition

Amendment 3, which was approved by an overwhelming majority of the state House and Senate last year, would amend the state’s Constitution to prohibit abortions except in “medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest” and bar gender transition surgeries for minors. It also would ban the prescription or administration of cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs to minors, with an exception for treatments “unrelated to the purpose of a gender transition.”

In banning abortion, the amendment also would repeal the state’s constitutional right to reproductive freedom. That right was approved by voters in 2024 in a measure also known as Amendment 3.

Opponents of the measure have raised an extraordinary amount of money for a state the size of Missouri: almost $20.5 million at last report. Supporters have raised a bit over $3.7 million.

Nebraska: Initiative Measure 442 would strengthen ban on trans athletes

Nebraska already has a law to prevent males (as defined) from participating in K-12 and college female sports. Initiative Measure 42 would make that prohibition part of the state Constitution.

The law was placed on the ballot by petition with over 211,000 signatures submitted. It qualified for the ballot once it was determined that the 139,000 signatures needed were validated.

Nevada: Question 6 is abortion provision going to voters a second time

Nevada’s Question 6 would would amend the state Constitution to recognize “a fundamental right to abortion.” To amend the state Constitution in Nevada, voters must approve the change twice. The first vote on this amendment occurred in 2024, with nearly 64.4 percent of voters giving it their approval.

The proposed amendment would allow abortion, which already is legal in the state, through fetal viability or “to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.” The right to abortion could not be “denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest.”

Supporters have raised nearly $1.6 million at last report. Opponents are far behind with almost $60,000.

Virginia: Question 1 would put abortion right in Constitution

Abortion in Virginia already is legal; Question 1 is designed to ensure that it stays legal by establishing a “right to reproductive freedom” in the state Constitution. Reproductive freedom is defined as “the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one’s own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care.”

Supporters have raised about $3.2 million for their campaign, while opponents trail with more than $800,000.

Washington: Initiative 638 would require sex verification for student athletes

Initiative 638, the Sex Verification Requirements for Female School Sports Initiative, includes an enforcement mechanism. It would require a signed statement from the health care provider of any student wishing to participate in female sports, a statement that “verifies the student’s biological sex.” The verification would have to be based on the “student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”

The campaigns for and against the measure are turning out to be expensive: Backers have raised a bit over $8 million, while opponents have raised more than $3.8 million.

The group supporting the initiative, Let’s Go Washington, was founded by and is partly bankrolled by hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, who contributed nearly $2.23 million. The biggest funders of the opposition are public-employee unions.

Let’s Go Washington also is supporting a parental rights measure and an initiative to repeal a new state income on wealthy households.

A survey released Tuesday by the Public Religion Research Institute found that among people without a religious affiliation, 67 percent strongly agreed with the statement “Empathy is a foundational moral value that helps build a healthy society,” and 83 percent agreed, whether strongly or not. But the agreement rate among all of the seven Christian groups whose responses were analyzed by PRRI was lower, in some cases much lower.

A majority of most Christian groups, led by Hispanic Catholics and white mainline Protestants or nonevangelical Protestants, still see empathy as a foundational value. But white evangelicals, the survey finds, are hostile to the idea. In fact, a higher percentage of white evangelicals find empathy to be dangerous than who agree it is a foundational value.

Precisely, among white evangelicals, a majority, 54 percent, agree with the statement “Empathy can become dangerous when it leads people away from building a society guided by God’s truth.” Most of those, 39 percent of the total sample, strongly agree.

The numbers come from an online survey of 5,539 U.S. adults conducted between late August and early September. (Of those, 5,200 were from a representative sample, with the remainder including 339 persons added to increase the sample size from small states.)

The survey’s findings show that popular evangelical influencers such as Joe Rigney and Allie Beth Stuckey are making inroads in persuading evangelicals that there are severe risks in loving their neighbors too much. Those influencers, including various pastors and others prominent in the religious right, claim that empathy can make people try to justify the sins of others.

Among that group, so much for the teachings of St. Paul, who urged fellow Christians to “rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep,1” using what is close to a dictionary definition of empathy.

The distrust of empathy also doesn’t seem evident in the Bible’s accounts of the life of Jesus. The Gospels tell us of a Jesus who was repeatedly moved with compassion, such as when he saw anxious crowds2 or when encountering those who were literally untouchable.3 And in parables such as that of the Good Samaritan4 he taught his follows to treat even outsiders with compassion.

A religious group showing mixed results in the survey was the Latter-day Saints, where about two-thirds see empathy as a foundational value. But more than any group other than white evangelicals, Latter-day Saints also see empathy as dangerous. More than a third, 35 percent, indicated that concern.

After those with no religious affiliation, Jews and adherents of other non-Christian religious showed the most appreciation of empathy. About 77 percent of Jews agreed that empathy is a foundational value, as did 80 percent of the other non-Christians.

Other parts of the survey showed a strong link between views on empathy and political perspective. Robert P. Jones, the president and CEO of PRRI, gave this analysis:

As Christian nationalist leaders attack the sentiment of empathy, a disturbing “empathy gap” has opened, separating Republicans and white evangelicals from most other Americans. Such orchestrated attacks are typical of violent authoritarian movements and should be disturbing to all who care about the moral foundations of our pluralistic democracy.

Alabamans will be voting Nov. 3 on a state constitutional amendment that would require local school boards to adopt policies providing student-led prayers in public-school classrooms.

The provision is part of Amendment 3, which also would require the boards to adopt policies requiring daily student recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag.

Amendment 3 was placed on the ballot by the Alabama Legislature’s passage of House Bill 511 earlier this year. The bill, sponsored by Republican state Rep. Reed Ingram, was approved in overwhelming, bipartisan votes: The House passed the amendment 94-3, with full Republican support except from one representative who didn’t vote, and 19-3 Democratic support with seven Democrats not voting. The amendment passed in the Senate 30-0 with two Republicans and three Democrats not voting.

Alabama state law already has strong protections for students to engage in religious expression during the school day. Students are allowed specifically to pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during, and after the school day; express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments; and wear clothing, accessories, and jewelry that display religious messages or religious symbols. Under the constitutional amendment, students also would be allowed to “conduct” classroom prayers, although neither the term “conduct” nor “prayer” is defined. Those specifics presumably will be determined by local boards if the amendment passes and is upheld by courts.

According to Ballotpedia, 35 states have laws requiring schools to provide a moment of silence or a time where students can voluntarily pray. If the amendment passes, Alabama would become the first where students could conduct prayers.

The relevant portion of the proposed amendment reads:

(a) Each local board of education shall adopt a policy requiring each public K-12 school under its jurisdiction, at the beginning of each school day, to conduct The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag and give all students the opportunity to voluntarily recite The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag.

(b) Each local board of education shall adopt a policy requiring each public K-12 school under its jurisdiction to allow a prayer to be conducted, provided that:

(1) The prayer must be initiated by and led by a student; and

(2) No student may be required to participate in a prayer.

(c) Any policy adopted by a local board of education pursuant to this section shall ensure that students have the right to opt out of participation in the Pledge of Allegiance or the prayer based on their own beliefs.

(d) Violations of this section may be reported to the local superintendent of education. The local superintendent of education shall review the violation.

A similar amendment was considered in the Legislature last year but did not pass. It would have required the prayers to be “consistent with Judeo-Christian values.” Presumably, that requirement was omitted from the current version in order to make it more likely to gain judicial approval should opponents challenge the amendment in court.

There do not appear to be any organized campaigns spending money to support nor oppose the amendment. The League of Women voters, however, has opposed the amendment, raising concerns about government involvement in religion.

The measure is expected to pass. A 2024 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 75 percent of Alabama adults favored having public-school teachers lead students in Christian prayer.

Ingram, the amendment’s legislative sponsor, explained his backing for the amendment to the Washington Post this way:

A lot of times, these kids go into school and find something to gravitate towards, whether it’s cigarettes, marijuana, drugs, or just running with the wrong crowd. I just thought that maybe we could try to go back to [prayer] to see if we could give these kids an opportunity to find something different.

Christian leaders across the theological spectrum are denouncing U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s plan to livestream a military execution, raising concern that such an action would reinforce the cycle of violence and violate human dignity.

(Update of Oct. 15, 2026: After receiving considerable bipartisan pushback from members of Congress, President Donald Trump announced on social media today that there would be no livestream of the execution.)

There are a few exceptions, however, coming from leaders who have been strong supporters of Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. And leaders of some of the country’s largest denominations have yet to address the issue.

Hegseth made public his plans last week in an interview aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln warship, saying that the Dec. 3 execution by firing squad of Nidal Hasan would be livestreamed “because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.” Nisan is a former U.S. army major who killed 13 at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009. He admitted to the killings and was his own attorney at his military trial. His motive, he has said, was to prevent U.S. soldiers from killing Muslims in Afghanistan, so the mass killing is considered an act of terrorism.

One of the religious bodies to most quickly condemn the execution was the Catholic Church, which has included a statement against capital punishment in its Catechism since 2018. Shortly after Hegseth’s announcement, Archbishop Paul S. Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued this statement:

It is with shock and great sorrow that I have learned of the Department of War’s decision to publicly livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan. Our God is the God of life. In no way can Hassan’s actions be condoned but this decision is a barbaric promotion of a culture of death and must be reconsidered. The word of God exhorts us: ‘do not repay anyone evil for evil’ (Romans 12:17). The public execution even of one who has done grave harm will only further undermine the moral fabric of our nation and be a blight on the conscience of its people.

I pray for the intercession of Our Lady of Good Counsel that we as a nation may always choose life even in the most trying times and circumstances.

Similarly, Walter Kim, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, told the Religious News Service that while there is a “need for justice” in the Hasan case,

[A] live-streamed execution by firing squad risks turning one of the state’s most solemn responsibilities into a public spectacle, promoting a culture of death, rather than a culture that upholds the dignity of every human being.

The NAE itself has no position on the death penalty itself because its member churches are divided on the issue. In a resolution adopted in 2015, the NAE said:

Evangelical Christians differ in their beliefs about capital punishment, often citing strong biblical and theological reasons either for the just character of the death penalty in extreme cases or for the sacredness of all life, including the lives of those who perpetrate serious crimes and yet have the potential for repentance and reformation. We affirm the conscientious commitment of both streams of Christian ethical thought.

A split among evangelicals regarding a public execution was evident in readers’ responses to a neutral statement by Franklin Graham on Facebook; Graham is the son of the late evangelist Billy Graham and has been a supporter of Trump. Graham wrote this on Sunday before asking his readers what they thought:

There are a lot of strong opinions out there about live-streaming the execution of a convicted mass killer. I don’t know where that debate will land, but some network news shows were saying how disgusted they were and how terrible it is. I found it ironic that many who embrace Hollywood and its culture of death that is constantly depicting murders, rapes, and all kinds of violence —all in the name of entertainment — are saying they’re so appalled at this. Have we become desensitized to death?

The response was sharply divided. Sentiments such as this were typical for one side: “I believe GOD justified death of man as punishment for taking the life of someone (on purpose). Years ago public viewing was part of a punishment as it instilled shame as part of the punishment and I think also some deterrence.” And on the other: “I feel that viewing by the general public would hurt our collective national heart and conscience, and cause more harm than good.”

One evangelical leader speaking out against the plans was Shane Claiborne, one of the founders of Red Letter Christians, which has opposed the death penalty. According to several news accounts, he compared the plan to “lynchings and hangings and all the other ways that we’ve made a spectacle of death in our own history.” He also said:

I don’t think there’s any way that you can follow Christ — the Prince of Peace, the one who blessed the merciful and interrupted an execution by saying ‘let the one who is without sin cast the first stone’ and then champion executions.

Mainline Protestant leaders, whose denominations generally oppose capital punishment, have also denounced Hegseth’s plan. Among them was the Most Rev. Sean Howe of the Episcopal Church, who wrote:

The Episcopal Church has long formally opposed the death penalty, and more recently we have called for an immediate moratorium on its use. The idea of live-streaming a firing squad execution is reprehensible in the extreme and will cause moral injury to everyone involved. We need to ask ourselves who we have become as a nation when senior officials decide to make a spectacle of state-sponsored violence.

As of this morning, two of the country’s largest denominations — the Southern Baptist Convention and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — had yet to comment on the situation, although both occasionally do issue formal reactions to current events.

Two of the well-known evangelical leaders who endorsed Hegseth’s plans have been known for their frequent support of the Trump administration. Robert Jeffress, who heads the First Baptist Dallas megachurch, wrote on Facebook:

I support the Pentagon’s decision to livestream the execution of mass-murderer Nidal [Hasan]. Capital punishment is commanded by God in Genesis 9:6 to remind people of the sanctity of human life. The more people that can see that truth illustrated through a public execution, the better.

And while Dallas megachurch pastor Josh Howerton didn’t explictly endorse streaming the Hasan execution, he implicitly endorsed it, writing on X (formerly Twitter) that the Bible “clearly teaches” capital punishment, and that the purposes of such punishment are justice and “[p]ublic deterrence, so the rest of the people ‘shall hear and fear, and never again do any such evil,’” quoting Deuteronomy 13:11.

It has become common for those seeking high public office, especially those who are not known well to voters, to write a book as part of a campaign introduction. But the Rev. Adam Hamilton, founding pastor of the 23,000-member Resurrection United Methodist Church1 based in a Kansas City, Kan., suburb, didn’t need to do that: Before he launched this year’s campaign to become a U.S. senator, he was already the author of 30-some books.

Befitting his career, those books didn’t focus on politics: They were published by Abingdon Press, a Nashville-based Methodist publishing house, and were written for Christians exploring their faith. Many of the books, particularly those dealing with Biblical themes, come complete with study guides and have been used by Christians from a broad spectrum of denominations. But there is one that at least mentions politics in its title, and as I read it this past weekend I found it surprisingly relevant on current issues, even though it was published in 2008, well before the current rise in Christian nationalism. It’s Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White: Thoughts on Religion, Morality, and Politics.

As it concerns Hamilton specifically, the book, published in 2008, is a snapshot in time, showing what the 62-year-old pastor was like 18 years ago. But by all indications, his outlook as expressed in the book isn’t all that much different than what he has expressed in the ministry he has had for decades, nor different than the type of campaign he has been running. (That campaign, by the way, has so far been remarkably successful, putting Hamilton in what a year ago would have seemed an unlikely situation: Running as a Democrat, he appears to competing neck and neck with the Republican incumbent, Roger Marshall, even though Kansas hasn’t had a Democrat in the U.S. Senate since 1939.)

That outlook is one of unwavering centrism. As Hamilton writes early in the book:

When people ask me, “Are you liberal or conservative” my answer is usually “Yes!”

In the title of his introduction, Hamilton asks a question using the names of a fundamentalist Christian and a very liberal Christian whose names would have been easily recognized when the book was written: “Are Jerry Falwell and John Shelby Spong Our Only Options?” For Hamilton, the clear answer is no. He finds much to criticize in both conservative versions of Christianity, which he fears can become too oriented toward the following of rules, and liberal versions, which may hesitate to recognize sin. He writes:

Finding the sweet spot between legalism and libertinism is not easy. We continue to struggle with it to this very day. Liberalism is the pull toward personal freedom that can easily result in libertinism. Conservativism tends to draw toward rules, laws, and a legalism that so easily negates the power of the gospel. But when we can hold together, in tension, the call to freedom that comes by grace and the call to holiness in seeking to live by the Spirit, we find the sweet spot — the perfect balance between grace and holiness — that allows our faith to soar.

And so Hamilton looks for a middle ground on the array of questions that have divided Christians: What does it mean to believe that the Bible in inspired? Is evolution compatible with God’s creation? Who goes to heaven and hell? Why do bad things happen to good people? What about abortion? What about war? What should the Christian attitude be toward supporting America?

The most interesting part of this book is Hamilton telling of his struggle beginning more than two decades ago to deal with issues relating to homosexuality. The book includes the full text of a sermon he gave in 2004 on the issue, one in which he acknowledged that he didn’t fully understand the issue and said he has “hope that God will help us as the church to discern his will as we move forward.” His views had shifted somewhat leftward by the time he wrote the book; he said that while he believes that “the Bible clearly teaches that God’s design for marriage is heterosexuality,” after listening to the life stories of countless homosexuals he has come to see that God’s will could allow for “a type of ‘plan B’” and that homosexuals shouldn’t be pushed out of the church. He adds that if one of his daughters turned out to be lesbian, “I would love her. I would want her to be welcome in our church. ... Would I be able to love the person she loved? I think I would.”2

In the end, Hamilton ends up at what he calls the “radical middle” or “radical center”:

The radical center within the Christian faith embraces the evangelical gospel that proclaims that human beings are wounded by sin and are in need of saving, and that Jesus Christ is God’s antidote to our human condition. And it embraces the social gospel that seeks to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, and recognizes the Christian’s responsibility for addressing the great problems of poverty, oppression, racism, the environment, and war. The evangelical gospel without the social gospel is spiritual narcissism. The social gospel without the evangelical gospel remains afflicted by sin and holds, in the words of the Apostle Paul, “to the outward form of godliness but denying its power” (2 Timothy 3:5a). The radical center holds that the gospel is incomplete without both its evangelical and social witness.

Not surprisingly, what Hamilton views as the center is too liberal for some of his conservative detractors; in recent weeks many of the country’s most prominent evangelical political activists have criticized not just Hamilton’s politics but also his theology. But it is also worth noting that as a Senate candidate Hamilton is more conservative politically than most Democrats running for federal office this year. For example, he backs an upgrade of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, rather than campaigning for the “Medicare for all” advocated by Democratic progressives.

With a full chapter on the Iraq war and a still-in-progress perspective on LGTBQ issues, Seeing Gray would be outdated as a book to introduce a campaign. But it does offer a fascinating historical perspective on the mind of a candidate now in a pivotal race.

The Supreme Court today announced that it had agreed to hear a case that could determine how a federal law affecting zoning and other land-use rules nationwide should be determined.

The case is Missionaries of St. John the Baptist v. Frederic, in which an independent Catholic organization is appealing a denial of its plans to build a small shrine on property it owns in Park Hills, Ky. The organization claims that the Kentucky Supreme Court should have approved the shrine under the terms of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a law unanimously passed by Congress in 2000 to provide certain religious-liberty protections beyond those guaranteed by the First Amendment.

As is typical, the Supreme Court gave no details about its decision to hear the case, a decision that requires the support of at least four of the justices. Oral arguments will probably take place in the spring of 2027 with a ruling coming late in the term that ends next June or July.

If the court agrees with the Catholic group, it might become easier in some jurisdictions for churches and other religious organizations to get variances and other types of permission for their land-use projects. Some jurisdictions already follow a broad interpretation of the law as sought by the Missionaries.

The case is the third dispute involving religious issues that the high court has agreed to hear during its term that begins Oct. 5. The other two are:

🟪 St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, in which two Catholic parishes and others are fighting a Colorado decision to exclude certain Catholic schools from state funding from a universal preschool program because they admit only children from families who support Catholic beliefs, including those on sexuality and gender. The parishes claim the exclusion violates the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment; the state claims it has an interest in not using taxpayer funding to support discrimination. The Supreme Court’s ultimate decision is likely to be a landmark ruling that will determine the extent that faith-based schools receiving funding will be free to engage in discrimination that would be unlawful in other contexts. Oral arguments are scheduled for Nov. 3.

🟪 Grand v. City of University Heights, in which Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew from University Heights, Ohio, is suing the city over the way it has handled his proposal to hold small religious gatherings in his home. Grand is suing the city under both RLUIPA and the First Amendment. Oral arguments have been scheduled for Dec. 9.

The Supreme Court also has been asked to hear other religious-based cases such as those involving faith-based charter schools and state requirements for posting the Ten Commandments in public schools. Decisions to hear or not hear those cases could come at any time.

The case involving the proposed shrine began in March 2021 when the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist applied for a conditional-use permit and a variance on property behind a church that it owns to provide a place that visitors could use for prayer and reflection. The Park Hills Board of Adjustment quickly gave its legal OK. That decision, however, was taken to court by neighbors Joel and Elizabeth Frederic, who are concerned about, among other things, the traffic that the shrine would generate. A trial court backed the city’s decision, but that ruling was then overturned by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The Catholic group appealed that ruling, which was backed by the Kentucky Supreme Court.

The case is being fought over technical issues involving how to apply a clause in RLIUPA that prevents government from imposing land-use regulations that impose a “substantial burden” on religious exercise unless the action furthers a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means to further that interest. The Kentucky Supreme Court said that a “substantial burden” was not imposed on the Missionaries in part because they could have modified their plans to fit the city’s ordinance; the Frederics claim that the state court correctly applied the law.

Lawyers from the First Liberty Institute, which traditionally takes on conservative causes, are among those representing the Missionaries.

A federal district court has, at least for the time being, removed legal obstacles to the opening of the country’s first faith-based charter school, one that would be fully funded by taxpayers.

Judge David L. Russell of the U.S. District Court of Western Oklahoma last week issued an injunction directing the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board to approve a charter for the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation to operate a virtual charter school. Russell was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan; his ruling is subject to appeal to the U.S. 10th District Circuit Court of Appeals.

This isn’t the first time that the Oklahoma board has faced the issue of whether to grant a charter for a religious school. The board in 2023 approved a charter for the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Charter School, but the charter was struck down by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which ruled, among other things, that the charter violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The state court’s decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2025 divided 4-4 after Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, possibly because of connections she had with the school and/or its legal team. The tie vote had the effect of upholding the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision without establishing a precedent.

Ben Gamla is represented by, among others, the Becket law firm, which also was involved with the St. Isidore case and has a goal of opening up public charter schools to religious instruction.

The case is National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation v. Shellem. Brian T. Shellem chairs the charter school board.

The board had rejected Ben Gamla’s charter application because it felt bound by the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision. According to Russell’s written opinion, the school board does not oppose Ben Gamla’s appeal of its charter rejection, suggesting that the board wants to see courts settle the constitutional issue. Russell did say, however, that two groups of taxpayers and/or parents have intervened in the case to fight state funding for the proposed charter school.

Russell based his ruling largely on Carson v. Makin, a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that determined Maine could not deny school voucher funds to a school simply because of its religious nature. That ruling has resulted in many states expanding the amount of public funding available to private religious schools, although no state has yet to fully fund a religious school as a charter school.

Peter Deutschol, founder of the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, praised the decision in a statement provided by the Becket law firm:

This is a victory for educational freedom, religious equality, and families in Oklahoma. The state cannot single out religious schools for exclusion while welcoming everyone else into the charter school program. We’re eager to open wide the doors of educational opportunity in Oklahoma.

Opponents of the school’s public funding responded differently. Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued this statement on behalf of the parents who have intervened in the case:

The court’s conclusion that a public charter school can be religious opens the door to a dangerous sea change for our democracy. Forcing taxpayers to fund religious public schools violates state and federal law. Ben Gamla will not only indoctrinate students into a particular religion — it will discriminate against families that don’t share the school’s beliefs. We will continue to fight for all Oklahomans, who deserve public schools that are secular and open to all students.

An immediate appeal of Russell’s decision is likely.

Original article (March 30, 2026): Another court fight over a taxpayer-funded religious charter school starts in Oklahoma

It was less than a year ago that the U.S. Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, brought an end to plans to create a totally government-funded virtual school operated by Catholic dioceses in Oklahoma. Now, advocates of religious schools financed with taxpayer dollars have filed a lawsuit that could ultimately give the nation’s top court a second chance to approve such a school.

But this time, the school would be Jewish rather than Catholic.

The case is National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation v. Drummond, in which the foundation is seeking to overturn the February decision by the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board to reject the creation of a virtual charter school whose curriculum would include Jewish religious instruction. Ben Gamla already operates four in-person charter schools in Florida, although those schools provide only a secular education, albeit one steeped in familiarizing students with the Hebrew language and Israeli culture.

It was that Oklahoma school board that in 2023 had approved the creation of the St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School, which could have become the nation’s first government-funded religious school were it not for courts that stepped in the way. The Oklahoma Supreme Court was the first to prevent the school’s creation, saying that it violated both the Oklahoma and U.S. constitutions. That decision in turn was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which split 4-4 on overturning the Oklahoma court’s ruling. Because the vote was a tie, it had the effect of upholding the Oklahoma ruling without setting a precedent.

When the board rejected Ben Gamla’s plans for a charter school, the board said it did so because it was bound by the ruling of the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The tie vote in the nine-member U.S. Supreme Court was possible because one of the justices, Amy Coney Barrett, who is Catholic, recused herself, presumably because of indirect connections she had with the proposed Catholic school. Supporters of religious charter schools are betting that Barrett will provide the vote needed for the Supreme Court to order the board to accept Ben Gamla’s charter application.

Ben Gamla filed its lawsuit in the Western District of Oklahoma U.S. District Court. It is being represented by the Becket law firm, which had represented the Catholic school and is one of the country’s biggest players in religious-liberty litigation.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are Gentner Drummond, the Oklahoma attorney general and members of the charter school board.

According to the lawsuit, Ben Gamla “aims to create a charter school in Oklahoma where students receive a rigorous academic education alongside a deep cultural and ethical grounding derived from the Jewish faith, heritage, and tradition.”

The lawsuit further explained1:

For many Jewish parents, and especially Orthodox Jewish parents, it is an important religious obligation to send their children to Jewish schools, where they will receive an education in secular subjects as well as the Jewish faith. This belief concerning the importance of religious education comes straight for [sic] the Torah, the Talmud, and the Jewish Code of Law, which explain that Jewish parents have a solemn responsibility to transmit the Jewish faith to their children.

Unfortunately, a Jewish education is not widely available in many parts of the United States. Where it is available, it can often be prohibitively expensive and beyond the reach of many Jewish families. Plaintiff Ben Gamla thus seeks to fill a gap by partnering with Jewish parents in upholding their religious beliefs and obligation to provide a Jewish education to their children. Indeed, the transmission of Jewish religious beliefs and practices to children is a core aspect of Ben Gamla’s religious mission.

It is likely that the federal court will schedule its first hearing in the case for later this year. Ben Gamla is likely to base its legal arguments in part on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Makin v. Carson, which found that states providing education vouchers cannot discriminate against religious schools simply because they are religious.

Since the lawsuit was filed just a few days ago, Drummond’s office has yet to file a formal response.

Although it has not yet publicly commented on the new lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union will almost certainly oppose Ban Gamla’s plans. It was one of the groups that had sued to prevent the formation of the St. Isidore school.

When announcing its opposition to that Catholic school, the ACLU said:

A private religious school is, of course, well within its rights to teach [religious] lessons. And churches are free to inculcate these beliefs in Sunday school. But they are wildly unconstitutional in public schools. Indeed, the mere notion of a religious public school is a constitutional oxymoron. This would be true for any proposed religious charter school — whether imposing Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or any other faith on students.

A dispute over a Korean-style spa’s desired policy of not allowing persons with male anatomy into areas where women are nude could be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case is Olympus Spa v. Armstrong1, in which the spa, its owners as well as a patron and three employees are seeking to overturn a determination by the Washington State Human Rights Commission. The commission says that such a policy violates the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which covers discrimination based sexual orientation, a term that has been defined by law to include gender expression or identity. The spa has claimed that that the desired policy would not discriminate against trans people because it would not deny admission to trans women who have had gender reassignment surgery. In other words, discrimination is based on anatomy, not identity.

According to court documents, the dispute began in 2020 when a trans woman2 who had not had surgery to remove her male genitalia filed a complaint with the commission about the spa’s policies that would keep her from entering the spa, which serves only women and has a women-only staff in accordance with the customs of the traditional Korean spa known as a jjimijilbang. Women at the spa are in the nude when they receive services such as body scrubs and use facilities such as hydrotherapy pools.

The commission ruled that the complainant should be allowed to become a spa client, and the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit to prevent Washington state from enforcing the law as interpreted. A federal trial court and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Washington state, leading to the current appeal.

According to the lawsuit, the spa owners, Myoon Woon and Sun Lee, operate the spa the way they do both because they want to maintain Korean traditions and because of their Christian beliefs that men and women who are not married to each other should not be unclothed together.

The petition to the Supreme Court describes the jjimijilbang like this:

Korean spas are unfamiliar to Americans. But they are not new, predating Washington’s public-accommodation law by many centuries. Someone who seeks this experience steps into a venue, called a jjimijilbang, that incorporates hundreds of years of cultural tradition reaching back to the Choson dynasty (1392–1910). This traditional Korean-spa therapy focuses on rejuvenating the body and spirit through treatments, massages, and full-body scrubs called seshin.

Culturally, a jimjilbang is not an individual experience; it is shared with others. Following long-standing tradition, Korean spas require their patrons to be fully nude in communal saunas and bathhouses. Patrons undergo deep-tissue scrubbing of their entire bodies in an open area filled with other unclothed participants. Given this intimate environment, Korean spas separate patrons and employees by sex.3

According to the plaintiff’s petition, because of the state’s mandate there have been “numerous incidents where a male entered” the spa dressed as a woman, undressed in the locker room, leaving “customers in shock and with fear” and experiencing “humiliation, trauma, and rage.”

The petition to the high court asks it to consider two legal issues:

🟪 Whether Washington state’s interpretation of the law violates the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment, which provides for religious freedom; and the constitutional right to associational freedom.

🟪 Whether discrimination on the basis of anatomy constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status.

The high court has set a deadline for November for Washington’s human rights commission to respond to the plaintiff’s appeal. If the Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling will remain in effect. If the court decides to hear the case, a hearing would most likely be held during the term that begins in October 2027.

By trade, Bonnie Kristian is a writer and editor, currently employed a deputy editor at Christianity Today, easily the most journalistically credible publication written within the framework of American evangelicalism. But in her role as author of the just-released In Defense of Evangelicalism: A Response to Its Cultured Despisers, she plays the role of a skilled defense attorney in the court of public opinion with evangelicalism itself on trial.

As such an “attorney,” she offers the “jury” a point-by-point rebuttal of the points made by journalists, academics and others who for at least the past dozen years have made the case that evangelicalism is irrelevant at best, broken or harmful at worst. Kristian knows being persuasive will be uphill battle, for surveys have found evangelism to be a religion with one of the highest disapproval ratings in the country. Of course, this negative image is inextricably linked to Christian nationalism and the rise of Donald Trump and MAGA-ism.

Kristian — and it must be stated from the outset that she is a devoted evangelical who has been critical of Trump and his political movement from the beginning — organizes her book and argument into rebuttals of five beliefs or positions common among critics of evangelicals. Those positions are:

🟪 Evangelicals are more about cultural and political identity than they are about religious beliefs.

🟪 Even to the extent that evangelicals are about religious beliefs, those religious beliefs are harmful.

🟪 Even to the extent that evangelicals’ beliefs are positive, they don’t behave in the way they supposedly believe. In other words, they are hypocrites.

🟪 Like all Americans, evangelicals free to hold whatever religious beliefs they want. But they shouldn’t bring what should be private religious beliefs into the public, secular square.

🟪 Evangelicals are dominated by Christian nationalists, who by definition want to turn the United States into a church-run state that would, among other things, take away rights from people with religious beliefs that aren’t evangelicalism.

Kristian has sound, well-reasoned rebuttals against all those positions, but before she addresses them she struggles with what may be the most important question of the book: What is an evangelical? As she attempts to answer the question, it’s clear that there isn’t an answer everyone will agree on, no checklist that can be indisputably designed to separate evangelical Christians from other types of Christians. And simply determining how many people define themselves as evangelicals doesn’t help: A surprising number of people, even some Jews, Hindus, atheists and others who have no connection with evangelicalism as traditionally understood1, identify themselves as evangelicals in recent surveys.

Kristian ends up with this partial definition:

Evangelicalism isn’t an institution or organization but a movement, a tradition, a manner of worshiping Christ. It’s a culture of enthusiasm, a way of life shaped around intimacy with God. It’s the maintenance of a deep sense of personal responsibility to the truth and to the world. It’s the branch of Christianity that never tires of repeating that Jesus died for you. As the kids say, it’s a vibe.

And as a vibe, evangelicalism has no central office or official creed. There’s no pope, no membership rubric for who’s in and who’s out. The reality is that evangelism has some fuzzy boundaries.

In the end, that’s about the most of a definition that Kristian can give, except to add that evangelism as she uses the term necessarily refers to Christians. Explicitly trying to avoid the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, Kristian says it makes more sense to talk about those who are more or less evangelical rather han saying that some on the edges aren’t evangelical at all. An example of someone she sees as less evangelical is Doug Wilson, an Idaho pastor who has been described as a spiritual mentor to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and who would bring an end to woman’s suffrage. As Kristian puts it: “Wilson would have to be included in American evangelicalism by any is or isn’t measure. But if we think about more or less, Wilson is undeniably less. ... Historian George Marsden famously quipped that ‘an evangelical is someone who likes Billy Graham.’ No one would define an evangelical as someone who likes Doug Wilson.’”

This struggle with defining exactly what evangelicalism is — a struggle that is far from unique to Kristian — ends up being the biggest weakness of her book, for she often claims that the worst of evangelicalism comes from its fringes or is otherwise atypical of evangelicalism as a whole. The rebuttals she makes to the anti-evangelical positions — such as the reality that individual evangelicals tend to be charitable and evangelical worship services nearly always focus on matters of salvation rather than on politics — are sound, but it seems there are always exceptions.

To her credit, Kristian doesn’t absolve evangelicalism of its shortcomings. In fact, in some ways, there are times that she verges on being as critical of certain aspects of evangelicalism as its detractors are. And she explicitly argues against the belief that some evangelicals have that they are being persecuted for their faith.

A book evangelicals will cheer

I suspect that most traditional evangelicals, both those who voted for Trump and those who can’t stomach him, who read this book would be willing to give it a five-star rating, appreciating the way how Kristian sees the good in evangelicalism that isn’t always seen in mainstream media or a wide array of cultural influencers.

But I can’t be quite so enthusiastic about the book, even though I recommend it. And that isn’t because I find my self in sharp disagreement with most of her arguments. I agree with her that some of the worst problems with evangelicals come from the fringes of evangelical belief and culture. I agree with her that evangelicals are often held to a higher standard than are adherents of other faiths. I agree with her that most evangelicals seek to love their neighbors. I agree with her that evangelicals have made great strides in overcoming prejudice within their ranks. There really is much positive that can be said about evangelicals!

But somehow, the sum total of Kristian’s arguments aren’t enough. I still see a religious movement whose most influential leaders have been complicit, maybe worse, in the U.S. government’s policies of cruelty toward immigrants and others that the Christian faith has referred to as “the least of these.” I see some of the politicians most complicit in that trend — I’ll use U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson as an example — as coming from mainstream evangelicalism, not its wacko fringe. I fail to see many of evangelicalism’s most prominent leaders (although there are exceptions) pushing back against cultural coarseness with any of the fervor that they used when such coarseness could be blamed on Hollywood or Democrats. The prophets of the Bible, particularly those of the pre-Christian era, had a reputation for challenging authority, but I don’t hear much of that kind of prophetic voice today in evangelicalism.2

Maybe I’m unfairly faulting Kristian here for trying to do the impossible. Maybe she is like the attorney trying to defend an obviously guilty client — somebody has to do it.

All that said, I can’t help but agree with some of Kristian’s final words. Writing to evangelicals, she says:

We must live up to the evangelical name, and any credible criticism will point us to the same reform. Be more serious. More studious of Scripture. More often in church. More faithful in prayer and diligent in service and capable of clear-eyed explanation for why we act and believe as we do. Be more evangelical, not less.

Amen.

Dallin Oaks, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was a member of the Utah Supreme Court for more than three years. But he’d rather see disputes over laws resolved in state legislatures and Congress rather than in the courts, he said yesterday in an address at the Washington National Cathedral.

One reason is because courts are limited to cases that come before them, often making it difficult to settle all aspects of an issue. A related reason is that legislative bodies can consider “the overarching, complex, and comprehensive policy-making that is required in a circumstance like some of the current conflicts between two great values” and thus can provide for negotiation among competing interests.

Oaks made what his church called “a landmark address on religious freedom” at an interfaith event sponsored by the cathedral on the eve of today’s Constitution Day, which marks the 229th anniversary of the Constitution’s signing. Oaks became president of the LDS church last year after the death of the then president, Russell Nelson. Previously, he had been an apostle in the denomination for 42 year after a law career that included an internship with the U.S. Supreme Court and a law professorship for 15 years. He has long been a student of the Constitution, which he said is inspired in the sense that it was based on divine principles, which to him include the separation of powers, the guarantees of individual rights, and the rule of law rather than by individuals. During his church tenure, he said, he has come to more fully appreciate the needs of people of faiths other than his own:

As a religious person who has served in government at both federal and state levels and now as leader of the worldwide Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have always known of the tensions experienced when persons who rely on the free exercise of religion are conflicted between duties to God and duties to country. More recently, I have come to understand better the distress of other minorities who feel that some of us are invoking constitutional rights like free exercise of religion and freedom of speech to deny or challenge their own core beliefs and their basic constitutional rights.

Oaks did not specifically mention any current controversies nor current political leaders. But he did point to the “Utah Compromise” that made Utah (where the LDS church is the dominant religion) the first, and so far only, red state to outlaw employment and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and sexual identity. He suggested that the approach taken could be a model for other legal controversies tied to religion:

The issue there was a Salt Lake City ordinance on housing and employment, first proposed in 2009. This was a head-to-head conflict between free exercise of religion and nondiscrimination. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and nondiscrimination advocates — adversaries in that contest — reached out to each other and participated in negotiations. This was previously thought impossible. However, both sides learned to understand each other’s positions, including what they deemed most important to be protected by law. The two sides worked together with the Utah Legislature, which amended the Utah antidiscrimination act in 2015.

The outcome offered protections to both sides. One side obtained significant legal protection from discrimination in employment and housing. The other side gained protection for religious freedom in its most sensitive areas of church employment and student housing. While the law gave neither side all that it sought, its reconciliations did grant both sides significant benefits. This win-win outcome could not have been obtained without the balancing of interests made possible by the dynamics of a legislative process.

Oaks said that for there to be freedom and unity, all should be willing to recognize the importance of working for the common good, which means that no side will attain a full victory:

As a practical basis for unity, all of us should accept the reality that we are fellow citizens who need each other. This requires all of us to obey some laws we dislike and to live peacefully with some persons whose values differ from our own. We should make every effort to understand the experiences and concerns of others, especially when they differ from our own.

We should be especially careful not to seek total dominance for all our own positions. Even though the First Amendment obviously guarantees the right to exercise or practice religious beliefs, that vital right is not absolute. Advocates for absolute religious freedom should yield to the reality that in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs or disbeliefs, the government must sometimes limit the right of some to act upon some of their beliefs when it is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all.

Where there is genuine conflict on the effect of constitutional rights, contesting positions need to be balanced legally and negotiated politically in a way that upholds all essential rights to the greatest extent possible. We need to work for a better way forward — a way to resolve differences without compromising core values. We should seek fairness for all. This is not easy when we differ on what are fairly judged as fundamental rights in a pluralistic society. ...

Living together in peace requires goodwill among those who differ. The effort also requires time and patience to sort out what is truly non-negotiable for each major participant. The goals of both sides are best served by resolving differences through mutual respect, shared understanding, and good faith negotiations. And all participants must accept and respect the rule of law. [Emphasis in original]

Oaks said that such negotiation is in accord with the teachings of Jesus and St. Paul, who taught, respectively, that “blessed are the peacemakers” and that Christians should “follow after the things which make for peace.”1

A December hearing date has been set for the first religion-related case that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during its term that begins Oct. 5.

The court has announced that a Dec. 9 hearing will be held in the case of Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew living in University Heights, Ohio, who claims that he has been harassed by city officials responding to his attempts to organize regular small meetings of other Jewish men in his home.

Grand has gained support from various Christian churches and organizations that point to a long tradition within Christianity for home worship, and they also cite traditions in other religions.

The case is Grand v. City of University Heights. It is one of two-religion cases already on the agenda for the court’s 2026-27 term; the other is St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, in which a Catholic preschool is trying to get admitted to Colorado’s state-funded universal preschool program. No date as been set for a hearing in that case. There are also several other religion-related cases, including challenges to laws requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, that could end up the agenda for the coming year.

According to Grand’s account, he emailed a dozen male friends in January 2021 asking them to join him in prayer as a minyan, a group of at least 10 Jewish men, on a Saturday. Before the minyan could convene, however, city officials got wind of the planned meeting and sent a cease-and-desist letter telling him he couldn’t use his home in a residential zone as a place of religious assembly. Grand decided to apply for a special-use permit and now claims that he faced “unprecedented procedural burdens” causing him to withdraw his permit application.

Technically, the legal dispute is over whether the city’s actions have had enough finality for Grand to be able to sue under the First Amendment and the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act; the city claims that without any enforcement action against him since he first sought a permit, Grant has not been legally harmed.

Since the high court agreed to consider the case, Grand has received “friend of the court” briefs of support from the NC Values Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation, both of which focus largely on technical issues involving land-use law. He has also received the support of a small group of religious organizations that point to some of the religious issues involved in the case.

The groups that filed that latter brief include The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), the National Association of Evangelicals and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, all of which have traditionally been actively involved in promoting religious liberty. The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty and the Anglican Reformed Catholic Church also joined in filing that brief.

The brief cited non-Jewish religious traditions involving home religious gatherings:

🟪 Christians were holding home gatherings as early as the New Testament times.

🟪 The LDS church encourages members to study scripture ‘with your family, or with friends.’”

🟪 “Southern Baptists routinely open their homes for Bible studies and small groups, prayer meetings, church planting, youth gatherings, discipleship groups, missionary gatherings, hymn singing and worship, and the potluck meals and fellowship that have long been a hallmark of Baptist community.”

🟪 Various “large Protestant congregations also encourage believers to meet as small groups in private homes for prayer and Bible study.”

🟪 Millions of Americans participate in a “house church” movement that eschews dedicated worship spaces and formal church organizations.

🟪 Some of the most important Muslim rituals take place in homes, especially during Ramadan.

🟪 The vast majority of American Hindus “say they use an altar, shrine, or religious symbol for worship in their home.”

🟪 Some religious minorities, such as Baha’is and Sikhs, worship in their homes because they are too small to have dedicated facilities.

The city has until mid-October to file its formal arguments. Third parties supporting the city have yet to file friend-of-the-court briefs.

It would have been easy for the directors of Death of the Pastor’s Wife, currently the No. 1 TV series being watched by Netflix subscribers, to sensationalize the sexual abuse that appears to have led to the event of the title. And it would have been easy for them to go into even more detail than what they did about the pastor’s troubled legal history. A case might be made that the series actually downplayed the troubling aspects of Pastor John-Paul “JP” Miller’s ministry as it told the story of his wife, Mica Miller, who died by suicide in April 2024.

What was most striking to me as I watched the three-part series was how ordinary so many of the documentary scenes were, particularly those of Mica singing with the congregation of the Solid Rock Church of Myrtle Beach, S.C., as a worship leader and of JP preaching his sermons. But all was not as it seemed.

The series’ story begins when Mica moved with her family to Myrtle Beach at the age of 13. She met JP, 15 years her senior, as a teenager and babysat for him and his wife, the parents of five. At the age of 18, Mica married another member of the congregation, but the marriage didn’t last, in part became Mica and JP started having an affair when she was 20 — or at least everyone involved seemed to treat the relationship as an affair even though describing it as abuse undoubtedly would have been more appropriate considering the ages and power differential between the two. They eventually divorced their spouses and married each other — but in an autonomous church such as Solid Rock without denominational oversight, that wasn’t enough for JP to be defrocked.

The film sympathetically tells Mica’s story largely through interviews with her friends and relatives. But the most damage to JP’s image comes from clips of sermons in which he advises wives that they face an obligation under Biblical teaching to give their husbands what they want in terms of sex — and we learn through what Mica told her friends that JP was demanding sex multiple times per day.

And his sermons all seem so ordinary.

You see, JP’s words echoed what was often uttered by many church leaders during the “purity culture” days of the 1990s and beyond. It was a culture that told Christian teenage girls and unmarried women that they needed to dress conservatively to keep men from being tempted sexually, but that after they were married they were expected to give everything sexual they had to their husbands. Women, the message was, are responsible for the sexual lives of their men.

Of course, JP was the kind to freely quote verses such as Ephesians 5:22, which directs wives to “submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”1

And lest you think that turning Ephesians into a command to submit sexually to such a degree is out of the ordinary, keep in mind that there is a part of the evangelical subculture — practiced by not all evangelicals by any means, and not even most — that sees it that way. In some evangelical stores as well as via Amazon, you can still find supposedly Bible-based books such as 2004’s Created to Be His Help Meet: Discover How God Can Make Your Marriage Glorious by Debi Pearl, in which she writes: “God has clearly told us that not having regular sex is giving Satan an opportunity to tempt married couples. Wife, it is your God-ordained ministry to your husband to be his totally enthusiastic sex partner, ready to enjoy him at all times.”

The story of Mica, who filed for divorce before her death, isn’t over. As the series comes to a close in the present day, JP is facing federal charges related to stalking, and he has married for a third time and continues to lead a diminished ministry. Meanwhile, friends and relatives of Mica are pushing for legislation called “Mica’s law” in South Carolina that would expand the definition of domestic abuse.

Part of me would have liked to see the directors of Death of the Pastor’s Wife more directly point to the red flags that might have helped Mica avoid her marriage or her friends and relatives to see the threat she was facing. But on further reflection, I’m thinking that maybe they were right to avoid portraying JP and his church as more obviously sinister than they did. After all, the fact that the pressures on Mica came from a supposedly God-endorsed pastor and organization is what put her at so much risk of being abused.

For centuries, Saint Florian has been seen as the patron saint of firefighters and chimney sweeps, while Saint Michael has been the patron saint of police officers and military personnel. And so it was that the mayor and staff of the city of Quincy, Mass., decided a few years ago to commission a pair of bronze statues of the two saints to adorn the city’s new public-safety building.

But the city’s plans to place the statues of the saints, a move that has the support of national firefighting and police associations, hit a roadblock recently as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the city’s plans violate the state Constitution. The court unanimously found that the city’s plans would probably be “perceived as government endorsement of a particular religion.”

The Massachusetts Supreme Court is the highest court in the state, so any appeals of the ruling would have to be taken to a federal court, possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. Although its appears that an appeal is likely, the city could face legal difficulties in an appeal because the ruling was based primarily on state rather than federal law. The state Constitution is more limiting than the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, providing that:

... all religious sects and denominations, demeaning1 themselves peaceably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

Technically, the court’s decision sent the dispute back to a state superior court, which had issued a preliminary injunction as result of a lawsuit by opponents of the statue to halt the city’s plans, so any appealable resolution of the matter is at least a few months away. That lower court had found it “likely” that the statutes were a constitutional violation.

That a city would consider using representations of Florian and Michael in connection with public safety isn’t particularly surprising. Firefighters in many parts of the country, including Massachusetts, use the “Florian cross,” a symbol that looks something like a four-petaled flower, for badges or emblems, and International Firefighters Day is celebrated on May 4, the Saint Florian feast day. And it isn’t unusual for police officers who have tattoos related to their profession to use one of Michael as a symbol of valor.2

The city staff had approved plans for the statues and spent about $761,000 on them before details on them became widely known. After a newspaper published details of the plans in February 2025, opponents started collecting signatures against them and packed a City Council meeting to urge members to reject the plans. The Interfaith Network also told the city it had “grave concerns” about the statue part of the project. After the council declined to change the plans, opponents filed a lawsuit three months later with the support of the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups known for their advocacy of church-state separation.

In making their case to the Supreme Judicial Court, the city had the support in the form of 13 amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs from a wide range of organizations including the Massachusetts Family Institute, the International Association of Firefighters and Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts, the National Fraternal Order of Police and Mass Fraternal Order of Police and various religious organizations such as the The Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team, the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, and the Knights of Columbus. Many of the briefs argued that the lower court’s rejection of the statues represented an impermissible hostility to religion.

Opponents of the statues were represented by an amicus curiae brief filed by the American Humanist Association with the support of various Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Unitarian and Christian groups. It argued that placement of the statues would represent government favoritism toward a single religious tradition and harm religious minorities and nonreligious people.

No decision will be made on a possible appeal until the lower court has made a final ruling to implement the top court’s decision.

If you’re looking for evidence that Christian nationalism poses an existential threat to American democracy, you need not look beyond recent history. So says U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman in his just-published book, No Prophets: The Fight to Save Democracy from Christian Nationalism, which he opens with an account of his memories from Jan. 6, 2021.

He was hoping it to be routine day for a member of Congress, or at least as routine as a day could be when the main item on the agenda was certifying the results of a presidential election. He did know there was the possibility of a day that wouldn’t be routine, since he couldn’t ignore a gathering of Donald Trump supporters whose “rhetoric was luring and violence: extreme even by Trumpian standards,” a gathering akin to a megachurch revival meeting where “the religion dial was cranked to eleven.” And while he says most members of Congress didn’t notice or care about the role religion played in the event, his interest was more than piqued because of his interest in religious matters. He had grown up a devout Christian but left the faith as a young adult, he writes, publicly identifying himself in 2017 as a Humanist1, making him the only member of Congress, then and now, to publicly acknowledge that he doesn’t believe in God.

As Huffman saw it, those behind the insurrection of Jan. 6 weren’t so much involved in a political movement as the term is usually used as but in a religious crusade. He introduces the book’s thesis like this:

No Prophets argues that extreme Christian nationalism is now America’s most dangerous political movement. Its theocratic, authoritarian ringleaders, once dismissed as fringe, now wield mainstream power, and they’ve using it to dismantle secular democracy from within. From a frontline perspective, I’ll show how this threat has advanced much further than most people realize. Indeed, it will be hard at this point to stop it from turning America into something unthinkable for most of us — something our Enlightenment-era founders fought against and built Constitutional walls to protect us from. But I wouldn’t write this book if the fight wasn’t still winnable.

For me, the most interesting part of Huffman’s book, the part that offered me the most new information, was his account of how the Congressional committee that prepared a report on the Jan. 6 insurrection intentionally left out all but a tiny, passing mention of the role that Christian nationalism2 played in the event. He writes that “scrubbing Christian nationalism wasn’t just a lapse in candor an courage; it was a major security blunder that left our country more vulnerable to what has now become America’s most dangerous political movement.”

And Huffman places the blame directly on what he calls the stubborn insistence of Liz Cheney, vice chair of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. He says that Cheney knew the committee’s report would have credibility only with her support, and she feared that if blame was placed on Christian nationalism that would detract from Trump’s culpability for the event. She feared that a focus on Christian nationalism also would alienate millions of Christians, and that the report as well as Cheney’s reputation might be perceived as anti-Christian.

Although not new to me, what also may be interesting to many readers is how the bulk of extreme Christian nationalism is made up of three distinct factions — and they don’t all agree with each other, neither theologically nor politically:

🟪 The New Apostolic Reformation, a largely decentralized movement of charismatic or Pentecostal churches3 that place an emphasis on spiritual warfare, miracles and prophetic visions. Leaders in the movement include self-declared prophets. As a prelude to the Second Coming, the movement advocates for Christians to take control of the “seven mountains” of cultural influence: religion, family, education, media, arts and entertainment, business, and government. Opponents to their efforts are often seen as demonic in nature. This is the largest faction of extreme Christian nationalism.

🟪 The Reconstructionist movement exemplified by the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, sometimes known as the Theo Bros, founded by Idaho pastor Doug Wilson. The movement advocates for Biblical literalism, strict patriarchal authority and nationalist identity as the cornerstones for a Christian takeover of government. Ultimately, as Reconstructionists see it, church and state will become one to herald in the Second Coming. This is the version of Christianity that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is affiliated with.

🟪 The Rad Trads, what Huffman calls the barely organized movement of Catholic traditionalist extremists who have been around since at least the 1920s and have opposed modernization of the Catholic Church while also supporting political causes such as anti-communism. Huffman sees Rad Trad influence on the Supreme Court as well as in some extremist influencers such as political commentator Nick Fuentes.

The power of these groups and their threat to democracy can’t be underestimated. Fortunately, Huffman offers hope to accompany his analysis. Much of that hope comes from those Christians, including evangelicals, who don’t agree with the agenda of the nationalists, and much of it comes from the growing number of “nones,” those without religious affiliation. Huffman describes a way forward for Christians and secularists such as himself to work together to support democracy despite the immense theological gap between them. Huffman’s book is the rare book capable of inspiring both the religious and nonreligious to pursue each others’ interests in creating a better future.

Lawyers representing a theologically diverse set of parents and their children went to the Supreme Court earlier this week in their effort to strike down a law passed by Texas lawmakers in 2025 that requires a conspicuous copy of an abridged version of the Ten Commandments to be posted in public-school classrooms.

Their appeal of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling says that the law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it imposes religious messages on a captive audience, and that it violates the free-exercise clause because it poses a “very real threat” of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.

The cases are Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District and Ringer v. Comal Independent School District. The petitioners in the two cases are all parents and their children from more than two dozen families who have sued a similar number of Texas school districts. The parents are affiliated with religions that include Baha’ism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Unitarian Universalism and nonreligious traditions. At least two rabbis and a parent using the title of “Rev.” are among the petitioners.

Lawyers representing the families are receiving support from the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

In their petition to the Supreme Court, the lawyers point out the court has faced this issue before — its 1980 ruling in Stone v. Graham invalidated a Kentucky similar similar to Texas’s:

The Court should grant the petition because the court of appeals, in upholding S.B. 10, flouted this Court’s binding precedents and gutted the religious freedom rights of public-school children and parents.

The lawyers also argued that the appeals court’s ruling destabilizes the laws on free exercise of religion:

If the permanent, unavoidable imposition of biblical scripture in public-school classrooms does not interfere with, or threaten to undermine, parents’ ability to direct their children’s religious education and to instill particular religious beliefs and practices, it is difficult to imagine what would. [Emphasis in original.]

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, oral arguments would probably be heard during the term that begins in October or the term that begins in October 2027. The court faces no deadline in deciding whether to accept the case, although it probably will do so in the next few months. At least four of the nine justices must agree to take the case before a hearing can be held.

If the court decides not to hear the case, the appeals court’s ruling would remain in effect in areas included in its jurisdiction, so that the Ten Commandments would be posted in some Texas schools. But court decisions striking similar laws in Louisiana and Arkansas would also remain in effect. The current situation, then, is that constitutional law is being applied differently in different states, giving a motivation for the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Earlier version (April 21, 2026): Appeals court agrees with Texas that Ten Commandments law is constitutional

Without a vote to spare, a federal appeals court has determined that a 2025 Texas law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms is constitutional.

By a 9-8 vote today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the law does not violate the clause of the First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of religion. It also found that the law does not interfere with the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

The court’s majority opinion, written by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, who was appointed to the court in 2017 by President Donald Trump, said of the Texas law, known as Senate Bill 10:

S.B. 10 looks nothing like a historical religious establishment. It does not tell churches or synagogues or mosques what to believe or how to worship or whom to employ as priests, rabbis, or imams. It punishes no one who rejects the Ten Commandments, no matter the reason. It levies no taxes to support any clergy. It does not co-opt churches to perform civic functions. These are the kinds of things “establishments of religion” did at the founding. S.B. 10 does none of them.

Last year, Texas became the third state to require the posting of the Ten Commandments in public classrooms, following Louisiana and Arkansas. Federal courts have found the Louisiana and Arkansas laws unconstitutional, and the Texas law was found unconstitutional in two federal rulings before today’s decision.

According to news reports, attorneys for the parents who had filed the lawsuit against Texas said they plan to appeal today’s ruling immediately. Because the ruling conflicts with those in Louisiana and Arkansas, it is likely that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case in older to resolve the conflicting opinions.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it won’t be the first time that the top court has considered the issue. The court ruled 5-4 in 1980 in Stone v. Graham that a similar Kentucky law was unconstitutional. During the past decade, however, the high court has demonstrated a willingness to expand the circumstances under which religion can be a presence in public schools.

Earlier version (Nov. 20, 2025): Ten Commandments law in Texas found unconstitutional by another judge

Some school districts in Texas are complying with a new law that requires them to post a copy of the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms. But wherever the law has been challenged, courts have struck it down, saying it conflicts with First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom from the government establishment of religion.

The most recent such decision came this week in a ruling by Judge Orlando L. Garcia of U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The ruling applies to 14 school districts, including some of the state’s largest such as those in Fort Worth and Arlington.

Earlier this year, Judge Fred Biery of the same court issued a similar ruling that applied to 11 school districts. Similar laws in Louisiana and Arkansas have also been invalidated by federal courts.

Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas are the three states that have passed Ten Commandments school legislation in recent years. Although the laws have been challenged in all three states, no court yet has upheld one.

Among other things, Garcia said in his ruling that Texas law violates the First Amendment because “it is impracticable, if not impossible, to prevent plaintiffs from being subjected to unwelcome religious displays” when the Ten Commandments are conspicuously posted in the way the law requires.

The Texas law, which had overwhelming Republican support and Democratic opposition, was signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in June.

Texas is expected to appeal the ruling to a federal appeals court, which could make a ruling binding on more school districts.

Although it is unknown how today’s U.S. Supreme Court would look on such a case, the court invalidated a similar law in 1980. In Stone v. Graham, the court decided 5-4 that a similar Kentucky law “had no secular legislative purpose” and was “plainly religious in nature.”

Original article (May 29, 2025): Texas to become third state to require Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms

The Texas House yesterday approved the final amended version of Senate Bill 10 on an 82-46 vote, sending it to Gov. Greg Abbott for his signature. Abbott has said he would sign the bill. “Let’s get this bill to my desk. I’ll make it law,” Abbott wrote on X (formerly Twitter) on May 1.

Although its implementation is likely to be delayed by court challenges, the Texas law is scheduled to go in effect Sept. 1, roughly the start of the upcoming school year.

The bill is similar to legislation passed earlier in Louisiana and Arkansas. Louisiana’s legislation has been successfully challenged in federal court and is awaiting judicial action on an appeal. The Arkansas legislation, scheduled to go in effect next Jan. 1, has not been challenged in court, although a lawsuit is likely.

Opponents of the Texas bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have promised to bring a court challenge soon.

The Texas bill requires that a “durable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments” be posted in “a conspicuous place” in every public elementary or secondary school classroom. The sign is not to include any text other than the specified version of the Ten Commandments and be “legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom in which the poster or framed copy is displayed.”

The text specified in the legislation is a highly abridged version of the Ten Commandments from the book of Exodus in the King James Version of the Bible. It begins with “I AM the LORD they God.” The numbering scheme used in this version is one commonly used by Protestants; although Catholics and Jews also have the Ten Commandments as part of their scriptures, they divide the text into commandments differently.

As was the case in Louisiana and Arkansas, the Texas legislation had strong Republican support and strong Democratic opposition.

Most likely, implementation of the Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana laws would require the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a 1980 decision, Stone v. Graham, it which it found a similar Kentucky law unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling found that the Kentucky law “had no secular legislative purpose” and was “plainly religious in nature” — one argument that the ACLU and other opponents have been making with the current round of legislation.

Obviously, supporters of the new laws are hopeful that the current Supreme Court will be more amenable to this type of legislation than is was 45 years ago. In the past decade, the court has generally been friendly to efforts by various states and local school boards to have public-school students exposed to religious instruction.

The American Civil Liberties Union and a leading advocate for Internet freedom of speech, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are helping one of the best-known critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fight the church in a trademark infringement lawsuit it has filed against him.

The ACLU and the EFF filed amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs to support John Dehlin and his Open Stories Foundation, defendants in a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit that the church filed in April. The church claims, among other things, that having a podcast called Mormon Stories creates confusion among listeners about whether it is a product of the church or some other entity, and that various visual elements in materials used by the podcast and foundation also create confusion in part because of their similarities with the visual elements of the church’s branding. The church also claims that Dehlin and/or the foundation have used images copyrighted by the church in their promotion.

In its lawsuit, the church claims that it has the legal right to use “Mormon” as a trademarked term, and in materials submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the church submitted the copy of its trademark registration, which says “Mormon” has been used as a trademark since 1833 for genealogy services and since the 1920s for educational services. The church also submitted copies of its registration for terms such as “Book of Mormon,” “Book of Mormon Stories,” “Mormon Messages,” “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” and “Mormon Channel.”

The lawsuit is Intellectual Reserve v. Open Stories Foundation. Intellectual Reserve Inc. is the arm of the church in charge of its intellectual property such as its publications, website, broadcasts, hymns and educational materials. The legal basis of the lawsuit is derived from copyright and trademark law; the church makes no additional legal claims pertaining to freedom of religion.

According to the lawsuit, Dehlin, an excommunicated member of the church, began his podcast in 20051 and created the foundation in 2010 to support the podcast. These days, the foundation also supports several other podcasts and organizes conferences and other activities to support its mission.

The church filed its lawsuit in April. The lawsuit asks the federal court to issue a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants “from using Defendants’ Marks, and any other mark, name, domain name, social media handle, or design that is confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ Marks, and from any attempt to retain any part of the goodwill misappropriated from Plaintiffs.” The lawsuit does not explicitly seek economic damages.

In explaining the lawsuit, the church said it tried negotiating with the Open Stories Foundation late in 2025 in an effort to resolve its concerns “privately and amicably” but was unable to reach an agreement. In its own explanation of its side of the controversy, the Open Stories Foundation said it had agreed to make numerous changes in its practices, such has changing the colors of some of the logos it used so they were orange rather than a blue similar to what the church uses. It also added disclaimers to its website to make it clear that its work wasn’t a church product, but it declined to put such disclaimers at the beginning of its videos.

In its amicus brief, the ACLU said that a decision by the court to side with the church would infringe on Dehlin’s right to free speech. Persons wanting to speak about an organization need to be able the name of the organization, the ACLU said:

Congress, courts, and the United States Constitution have all recognized that this kind of chokehold on language is an inappropriate weaponization of intellectual property law beyond its intended purpose. Trademark law does not override the public right to mention, criticize, or discuss.

The ACLU also said that the term “Mormon” can’t controlled just by the LDS church because it applies not just to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but to “an entire ethnoreligious tradition, culture, and people that extends beyond any one institution.” It pointed out that authoritative reference works use “Mormon” to refer not only to the LDS church, but also to various other churches that accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, such as the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Apostolic United Brethren.

In its explanation of why it was helping the Mormon Stories Foundation, the EFF pointed out that it has previously assisted groups such as the Mormon Mental Health Association and a dating service called Mormon Match when they faced legal disputes. The EFF also said:

... First Amendment safeguards are especially important in cases like this one, where a plaintiff is seeking to control the use of a common term for its common meaning. Trademark law isn’t even supposed to extend to generic terms, and for good reason. Otherwise, we risk giving trademark owners power to control discussion and debate over entire topics.

It’s about time that a court shut down the LDS Church’s trademark bullying. We hope the court will do so here.

It is unclear why the church has chosen to file its lawsuit against the Mormon Stories podcast when there are other podcasts that have used “Mormon” in their names. In a recent podcast called Mormon Land, a product of the Salt Lake Tribune, managing editor David Noyce told listeners that the church has never asked the Tribune to change that podcast’s name. He said, however, that many church members have registered their disapproval over the podcast’s name.

Ironically, the legal wrangling is coming at a time when the church itself has disavowed use of the nickname for the church. The church’s then-president, Russell Nelson, considered a prophet, used a 2018 sermon to denounce use of the “Mormon” nickname for the church, saying that to “remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s church is a major victory for Satan.” The church immediately began removing a wide variety of Mormon branding from church entities, including changing the name of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square.

Half a dozen current and former pastors have received major-party nominations for U.S. Congressional races this year, and collectively they are divided as much as the country is: Three are Democrats and three are Republicans.

You might say, however, that Democrats have a slight edge: A Presbyterian seminarian, James Talarico, is also in the running, drawing plenty of attention as a Democratic candidate from Texas who could who could take away what was once seen as a reliably Republican seat in the Senate.

The most recent minister to get on November’s ballot was Adam Hamilton, head pastor of the Church of the Resurrection, a United Methodist congregation in Kansas City, Kan. He topped a field of 11 candidates earlier this month with about 35 percent of the vote to earn the Democratic nomination.

The seven candidates are true to the stereotypes of their branches of Christianity: The four Democrats come from mainline Protestantism, while the three Republicans come from evangelicalism.

Three of the candidates are already members of Congress: Missouri’s U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat and a former United Methodist pastor, chairs the the Congressional Black Caucus. Republicans Reps. Mark Harris and Tim Walberg represent districts in North Carolina and Michigan, respectively.

Two of the Democrats running, Sarah Trone Garriott and Lindsay James, are seeking to represent districts in Iowa. John Elleson is seeking an Illinois seat.

Here are quick looks at the candidates and races:

Talarico aims to flip Senate seat to Democrats

Go to a James Talarico rally and you’re likely to hear portions of a sermon embedded in the candidate’s speech. Talarico, a divinity student at the Presbyterian-affiliated Austin (Texas) Seminary, frequently quotes from the Bible as he emphasizes its teachings to love one’s neighbors and care for the needy. As someone who has denounced Christian nationalism in no uncertain terms, Talarico clearly has been aiming a part of his campaign at those disturbed by seeing the Christian faith used as a weapon against immigrants and LGTBQ persons, among others.

Talarico faces the scandal-ridden Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, who got on the ballot by handily defeating the incumbent, John Cornyn, in a runoff election in May. Talarico earned his spot in the general election with a 6-percentage-point win over U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett. Four minor-party candidates are also in the race.

At 37, Talarico is one of the youngest U.S. Senate candidates in this election cycle. A former teacher and a representative in the Texas Legislature, Talarico earned a master of arts in theological studies at Austin Seminary last year and is on track to earn a master of divinity degree at the school. He has long been a member of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin.

Talarico entered the race as an underdog: Despite Democratic strength in parts of the state, the last time a Democrat was elected to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate was in 1988 with the election of Lloyd Bentsen. Talarico’s task was made easier when Paxton won the Republican primary, as Paxton has had a stormy history in Texas politics. Most notably, he was impeached in 2023 by the Texas House of Representatives on allegations that he had abused the powers of his office to help a political donor. He was acquitted of the charges by the Texas Senate, however.

Politically in the mainstream of the Democratic Party, Talarico has been running a populist campaign against both Paxton and the Trump administration, saying it is time to begin “flipping tables,” an allusion to an incident in the life of Jesus. Most of his views are within the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

One of the most recent polls, conducted by Texas Southern University, shows a tight race, within the margin of error. It showed Talarico leading with 47 percent compared with 45 percent for Paxton. The remainder were undecided or supported a Libertarian candidate.

Hamilton also hopes to turn a red seat blue

Adam Hamilton, who heads the largest United Methodist congregation in the country, is running a centrist campaign in which he is emphasizing affordability and the need to bring civility and cooperation back to politics. The race, in which he is pitted against the incumbent, Roger Marshall, is, like the Talarico-Paxton matchup, expected to be one of the most expensive in the country, with as much as $50 million projected to be spent in total by the two candidates.

Hamilton’s Church of the Resurrection, which he founded in 1990 with some of its earliest worship services held in a funeral home, and thus its name, has followed the trajectory of many evangelical megachurches. It is reported to have more than 20,000 members spread across several campuses, and its sanctuary holds more than 3,000. Because of the campaign, Hamilton has temporarily separated himself from his ministry to avoid raising ethical concerns.

Hamilton had originally planned to run as an independent, he has told news media, but decided to join a crowded Democratic field in the primary as supporters told him he would have a better chance of victory as a Democrat.

Marshall entered the Senate in 2021 after having served in the House for two terms. An obstetrician, Marshall has run using the moniker of Doc Marshall. He has been running largely on his record of supporting Kansas agriculture and industry.

A glance at the House races

Incumbent parties appear to have an edge in the House races involving a minister, but at least in the first two races listed below there is a chance for an upset:

🟪 Sarah Trone Garriott, a former pastor affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, is the Democratic nominee in Missouri’s 5th Congressional District. She is hoping to unseat the Republican incumbent, Zach Nunn, who is in his second term. Nunn was elected by fairly narrow margins in both of his races, earning 50.3 percent of the vote in 2022 and 51.8 percent in 2024.

🟪 The Democratic nominee in Iowa’s Republican-leaning 2nd District is Lindsay James, a graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary who has been a Presbyterian Church (USA) pastor as well as a college chaplain. The seat is open because the incumbent, Republican Ashley Hinson, decided to run for the U.S. Senate. James’s Republican opponent is Joe Mitchell, a businessman and a former member of the Iowa house and at one time its youngest-ever member at the age of 21.

🟪 Democrat Emanuel Cleaver appears to have a safe seat in the 5th Congressional District seat of Missouri, having held that post since 2005. He served as pastor of a United Methodist Church in Kansas, Mo., until 2009. He currently is the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. His Republican opponent is state Sen. Rick Bratten.

🟪 Mark Harris, the lead pastor at Trinity Baptist Church in Mooresville, N.C., is no stranger to political campaigns: He ran for the U.S. Senate in 2014, placing third in the Republican primary, and followed that up with stronger results in 2016, losing a race for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District seat in a recount. Two years later, he appeared to have won the 9th District seat, but the election was invalidated after allegations of election fraud. State officials reran the election, but Harris did not run that time. In 2024, he successfully ran in the 8th District and won with nearly 60 percent of the vote. That is the seat he currently holds and is favored to win this year. His Democratic opponent is businessman Colby Watson.

🟪 John Elleson, a pastor at Lakewood Chapel located in Arlington Heights, Ill., has an uphill fight for an open seat in his state’s strongly Democratic 9th Congressional District. His Democratic opponent is Daniel Biss, a former member of the Illinois House. The incumbent is Jan Schakowsky, who decided not to seek re-election after having served since 1999, last won re-election with 68 percent of the vote.

🟪 U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, a former pastor now in Michigan’s 5th Congressional District, is seeking his third term. He was pastor of Grace Fellowship Church in New Haven, Ind., during the 1970s. He is strongly favored to win, as he earned more than 60 percent of the vote in his two earlier House elections. His Democratic opponent is Christian Vukasovich, a teacher who, according to his website, descended from a long line of Michigan ministers on his mother’s side of the family.

Certain U.S. news media have been fond of running stories suggesting that conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives, are under persecution simply for holding the beliefs they do. And that certainly was true last week as news broke that this year’s winner of Miss North Carolina USA pageant, Brittany Boltinhouse, on her way later this month to the national competition, had lost her crown.

Some sample headlines:

🟪 New York Daily News: Brittany Boltinhouse, ex-North Carolina Miss USA, says title stripped due to her faith

🟪 Fox News: Former Miss North Carolina USA says conservative Christian values played role in losing crown

🟪 TMZ: Former Miss North Carolina USA: I Was Targeted For My Conservative Christian Views!

Do the headlines tell the full story?

Truth verdict: ❌

It is true that Boltinhouse has conservative Christian beliefs with conservative political views to match. But while the pageant organization has not gone into specific details, it has become clear that it handed over Boltinhouse’s crown to the runner-up because of conduct that took place years before the pageant was held, conduct that would be damaging to the Miss USA brand.

In all likelihood, that conduct included social media posts that Boltinhouse, now 27, wrote as a teenager in which she repeatedly used a form of the n-word and made other types of disparaging comments about people while using vulgar language. Some of those posts were published Thursday in The NC Beat.

In announcing the decision to de-crown Boltinhouse, the CEO of the Miss USA organization, Thom Brodeur, wrote for Instagram:

The Miss USA organization does not tolerate racism, homophobia, transphobia nor language that strips any person of their dignity — whoever they are. That is not a policy written for a press release. It is the floor of what it means to represent this brand.

A title here isn’t a trinket. It is a position of trust, extended by an organization and accepted by a woman who agrees to carry a standard in public.

When that standard is broken, the title cannot continue as though nothing happened.

In an video interview with the Carolina Journal published shortly after that announcement, Boltinhouse cited a confidentiality agreement as she declined to discuss details about what led to the pageant’s action, although she acknowledged that she has grown into being a different person than what she once was.

Some of the headlines about her losing the crown because of her faith came from comments she made during that interview. She said in part:

… [A]s of today, I believe and think I was stripped from my title because of my political stance and my belief system as a conservative Christian woman.

… So I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. … I am proud of my faith. I’m proud of my standards. I’m a proud conservative woman but a Christian woman. I’m a God-fearing woman. I believe that we, what is the phrase, [are] standing in holy places at all times and in all things and in all places. And, you know, I will never let my guard down for my faith.

And also I love this country. I believe in land and prosperity and priesthood, and America is what it gives is that is, I believe we believe that a nation under God. That’s who I am, and that’s what my parents taught me to be, is a person who loves this country because this country, this country has given me opportunity, and the opportunity to show my religious beliefs. And I’m proud of that.

She also said she believes she has been judged with a narrative “that is just not true.”

A Muslim has never served in the U.S. Senate, but that could change next year if Abdul El-Sayed has his way: The son of Egyptian immigrants, El-Sayed on Tuesday narrowly won the Democratic primary in Michigan’s U.S. Senate race, becoming the country’s first major-party Muslim nominee for the legislative body. He narrowly defeated U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens.

El-Sayed is expected to face an uphill challenge for the November contest: He’ll be running against Mike Rogers1, a Republican who is well known in Michigan politics. Rogers served seven terms in the U.S. House beginning in 2001 and ran as the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in 2024, losing to Elissa Slotkin by less than half a percentage point. And pundits say that Al-Sayed’s progressive politics — he was endorsed by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — could make it difficult for him to attract centrist or nonpartisan voters. Supporters of Stevens during the primary had argued that she would be more electable than El-Sayed, but Stevens and her leading supporters united around El-Sayed once it became clear that he won the race.

It is a guessing game for now to predict how much of a role El-Sayed’s religion or ethnicity will play in the race. It may be that a statement on the homepage of Rogers’ campaign website that he “led the House Intelligence Committee to hunt down terrorists and keep Americans safe” is a not-so-subtle attempt to portray El-Sayed as soft on terrorism, although that statement has been prominent on the website since long before El-Sayed secured the nomination.

Four Muslims currently are in Congress as members of the House: André Carson of Indiana’s 7th District, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota’s 5th District, Lateefah Simon of California’s 12th District and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan’s 12th District. Carson is a mainstream Democrat, while the other three are identified with the progressive (or democratic socialist) wing of the Democratic Party. All four are expected to win re-election.

These days, the best-known Muslim in U.S. public office is New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who last year became the first Muslim elected to that position. So Muslims elected to high office in the United States end to be aligned with political progressivism.

That Michigan could become the first state to put a Muslim in the Senate shouldn’t be surprising: Rakwa, a leading Arab-American news site, has called Michigan the epicenter of Muslim America, noting that about 3 percent of the state’s population is Muslim, the highest Muslim concentration the country. That’s more than twice the number for the nation as a whole. Michigan is home to the country’s largest mosque, and the city of Dearborn, Mich., has been called the Muslim capital of America. Rakwa said that Islam has played a major role in the state became of historical waves of Arab immigrants coming to work in the automobile industry beginning in the early 20th century2.

El-Sayed, a 41-year-old epidemiologist, has not previously held elective office. But he has been a public official, serving as director of the Detroit Health Department and later as director of the Wayne County Department of Health, Human and Veterans Services. He has been active in Michigan Democratic politics, running for governor in 2018, running a distant second in the primary to Gretchen Whitmer, who became governor.

According to the Religion News Service, El-Sayed has not been shy about discussing his faith. He told the RNS last year:

I believe deeply in the role that faith has played in my life, in, you know, how it orients me to try and be a better person, to give more of myself, to know my fellow creation, to treat people — all people — with dignity and humanity and respect.

El-Sayed’s candidacy has raised concerns among Jews and evangelical Christians who support the Israeli government. He has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza and has said more generally, according to The New York Times, that he doesn’t “believe in ethno-states.” A political action committee backed by a pro-Israel lobbying organization, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, spent millions trying to defeat Al-Sayed in the primary. It is unknown to what extent AIPAC will get involved in the November contest.