Lawrence Davidson on the problems with the Texas Board of Education’s effort to institutionalize a fundamentalist form of Christianity through public schools.
Flag of Texas over Corpus Christi. (Quintin Soloviev /Wikimedia Commons/CC0)
By Lawrence Davidson
TothePointAnalysis.com
I have been thinking about folks who are into one or another messianic worldviews. This can be a secular or religious search for what is really a false sense of certainty. Either way that need for certainty requires one to think that history is foreordained and a belief in holding the secret to correctly predicting mankind’s future. The United States has several versions of this obsession, among them Christian Fundamentalists and Christian Nationalists.
You can describe these fundamentalists and nationalists as Christian absolutists. That is, anything the Bible (preferable the King James version) says is absolutely true. You can trace their communities back to 18th century America, but here I want to concentrate on the the early 20th century.
In the first half of the 20th century, the fundamentalists were, by default, both politically and socially influential. This was because in many sections of the country (particularly the South) it was taken for granted that a Biblical interpretation of history and morality was self-evident.
Many state legislatures, governors, town mayors and councilmen (not a lot of women in office), followed this creed (at least in public). However, this broad influence eroded in the multicultural and secularizing environment of evolving large urban centers.
That change came to the surface in 1925 because of an event in Dayton, Tennessee. There, a high school teacher, John T. Scopes, was accused of violating a Tennessee state law by teaching human evolution in a public school. While he was ultimately convicted and fined, the trial of Scopes was a turning point in public opinion.
John T. Scopes, center, with his lawyers in 1925. (The Modern Review./Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain)
In those multicultural urban areas (then growing economically dominant), the Scopes trial seemed a demonstration of Christian fundamentalism’s superstitious and anti-modern character. In the decades following, many of the nation’s Christian fundamentalist communities became more insular — seeking to isolate themselves from the corrupting effects of a growing secular society.
Inspiring the Christian Right
This insularity lasted into the late 1970s. At that point an energetic Baptist minister/televangelist named Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority. The assertion of morality here was based on the assumption of the fundamentalist creed that it knew God’s mind. The “majority” assertion was an attempt to make Falwell’s movement appear larger than it actually was. In any case, Falwell was a talented organizer and the movement did grow, aligning itself with various conservative social causes.
Falwell threw his support behind the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan and indeed helped Reagan become president in 1980. The movement would inspire what is now the multifaceted Christian right.
Reagan with Falwell in 1983. (White House Photographic Office/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain)
In turn, the Christian right found another political hero in Donald Trump. On Trump’s coattails a slew of social reformers of Christian persuasion came to office. And so, today we are faced with not only Christian fundamentalists but also a parallel Christian nationalist campaign hoping to politically capture the entire country and universalize the religious creed that seemed to go into decline after the Scopes trial.
For someone of a secular background, someone who believes in the efficacy of science to explain the world, Christian fundamentalism is an escape into fantasy. Actually all religions are such an escape, though those that do not have messianic and proselytizing characteristics are a safer, more individually centered variety. The American brand of Christian fundamentalism is, however, something else. It is on a “mission from God.”
The Texan Example
Want an example? Let’s take a look at Texas.
In June, the Republican-controlled Texas State Board of Education voted 9-to-5 to approve a required reading list for public school students that includes Bible stories.
There will also be a new social science program with Christian-inspired lessons on how the “meaning” of the stories link to examples of great literature and U.S. history. This will be introduced in a state that already requires copies of the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public school classrooms.
Is this an effort to institutionalize a fundamentalist form of Christianity through the mechanism of public education? There are over 5 million public school students in Texas.
Here are some examples of those Bible stories:
— At the elementary school level emphasis will be put on adventure stories wherein good guys appear to overcome bad guys, such as David and Goliath, Daniel in the Lion’s Den and the story of Moses. Then, in the fifth grade, there is a transfer to the New Testament with passages about Jesus somehow made compatible with the prior stories.
—Middle school students in the sixth and seventh grade will be required to take up Jesus’ teachings. The example given by the school board is the Sermon on the Mount.
—At the high school level the emphasis goes back to the Old Testament where students will read, among other passages, the story of Adam and Eve and the Book of Job (I wonder how the teachers will rationalize that one). In an effort to show how this is all culturally relevant, the new approach requires that “these selections will be paired alongside works like Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and books by Charles Dickens.” I think it would be fun to pair Jonah in the belly of the whale (“great fish”) with Moby Dick.
Students in Houston’s Lee High School in 2013. (U.S. Department of Education/Flickr/CC BY 2.0)
Here are a couple of questions to ask:
Except as a disguised proselytizing tool, does any of this make sense? Approximately one-third of the public school students in Texas are not Christian. They are Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and a fair number of Jews — not to mention a handful of closet atheists. As one interviewed teacher observed, “I can say all day long, ‘Well, we’re teaching a theme, we’re teaching symbolism,’ but they’re hearing, ‘This is a Bible story. We’re talking about [somebody else’s] God.’”
What percentage of the country’s educated population actually believe the rationalizations given in support of this curriculum? Rationalizations such as, “Supporters of the changes have argued that Judeo-Christian traditions were fundamental to the nation’s founding and that should be reflected in the public school curriculum.” In fact, most of the “Founding Fathers” were deists.
And, in 18th century America, Judeo-Christian belief and the Bible were used to support slavery. That would not change until the abolitionists came along in the 19th century — a generation past the time of the “founding.”
It is claimed that “these timeless works, including Biblical passages, have shaped American culture and history, and have influenced generations of thinkers, leaders, and citizens.” Well, is that a good or bad thing? If these “timeless [religious] works” were seen as so positively influential and convincing, why was there always a constitutional barrier between church and state?
The answer is that the “Founding Fathers” were well aware of the bloody history of European states fused to one religion or another. It continues today in several Muslim countries as well as in Israel. Obviously this is a history unknown in the “great” state of Texas.
Question of Constitutionality
President Donald Trump in red cap in a prayer before a rally in Des Moines, Iowa, July 3, 2025. (White House/Daniel Torok)
Finally, is any of this constitutional? Well, the U.S. Constitution forbids (in the so-called Establishment Clause of the First Amendment) the federal government from “creating or officially favoring a national religion, and from overly entangling itself in religious matters.”
According to a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1940, (based on the 14th Amendment which established the supremacy of federal law) that disestablishment of religion applies to all state governments. The Texas move, on the face of it, would seem to be an effort, through its control of public education, to establish a brand of Christianity as the religion favored by the state. Hence, it is unconstitutional.
Will the Trump administration fulfill its role as defender of the Constitution in this case? The Republicans, who control both the Texas state legislature and the Board of Education, are all Trump supporters. In the last presidential election, Trump carried the state with a 13.6 percent majority.
Given Donald Trump’s dismal record of enforcing the Constitution along progressive lines, the chances are pretty good that he will do nothing to enforce the “Establishment Clause.” This puts the president himself in conflict with the Constitution, and not for the first time.
Perhaps the most important point to consider is that historically, fundamentalists and absolutists (be they of the religious or secular variety) have always had a disastrous impact on society whenever they attain power.
This apparent inevitability stems from (1) their hard-core belief that they have a mission to direct history in a preset direction (2) and in carrying out that mission, they suppress those who disagree particularly when the dissenters get close to majority status. As far as I know, there is no historical example of fundamentalists and absolutists in power operating in a way that is compatible with democracy.
It is the power of the U.S. Constitution that can hold at bay the nation’s Christian fundamentalist attempt to rule. How long will that last? These ideologues now have a president who caters to their ambitions, and they are likely to prosper as long as he does. Thus, if Trump ever conspires to overturn the Constitution, the Christian fundamentalists can be expected to back him.
This is what happens when you know no history or have been raised to replace real history with myth. The Texas State Board of Education has taken the first step in that direction.
Lawrence Davidson is professor of history emeritus at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He has been publishing his analyses of topics in U.S. domestic and foreign policy, international and humanitarian law and Israel/Zionist practices and policies since 2010.
This article is from his site, TothePointAnalysis.com.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Please Donate to
CN’s Summer
Fund Drive!
I think it’s worth stating that they’re probably Calvinists. This is a quibble –certainly– but I defend it nevertheless. I don’t see, for instance, high-church Episcopalians as having much to do with events happening in Texas. I’m claiming that the descendants of the Ulster-Scots who came to the American colonies circa 1729-1779, with a big chip on their shoulders against king and Crown, subsequently brought such havoc and ruin to our nation. And it would surprise me not at all to learn that their descendants are heavily represented in Texas?!
Unfortunately, all previous efforts to either suppress (USSR) or legislate religion (USA) have been ineffective: it only goes underground. How can a rational society, assuming one arises (!) DEMOCRATICALLY effect the end of religious superstition? In my view only by making it IRRELEVANT and BORING. This would take generations.
There is nothing to any organized religion currently present on this Earth save the petrified politics of a time long ago that we’d all frankly be better off forgetting about, save for a few historians. Personally I think the Tale of Gilgamesh said it all: “The life of man is short, but the deeds of men live on forever.” Or at least, as long as the human race continues. Which, with all these worse-than-worthless self-righteous bums sucking us dry, may not be long.
I am a Christian, so I criticize as an insider. God’s people made two atrocious blunders based on three defective attitudes: inadequate knowledge of God, inadequate trust in him and idolatry. Both the attitudes and the outcomes of the blunders persist. First blunder: Israelites demanded their leader, Samuel, to give them a king. In time Israel descended into realpolitik; the prophets tried to direct the kings to serve God and were partially successful in Judah, but the Northern Kings did not listen at all. In the end Israel ended up ruled by foreign kings in their own homeland. Jesus came, in part, to call Israel back to the direct rule of God. For roughly 2-300 years, Israel, i.e., the church remained loyal to God and held the line against participating in empire culture. Their despisers criticized them for failing to serve in the military and seeking public office. For the most part the original church had nothing to do with realpolitik. 300 years before Constantine, Satan had tempted Jesus to get on his side and rule the nations by his invincible power. Jesus refused (and as we have seen the original church followed him). Constantine tempted the church, “Throw in your lot with me to unify the empire, and I will end the persecution.” The church bit the apple. We followed ancient Israel’s siding with political power—the second and ongoing atrocious blunder of God’s people. During the centuries that have followed, we have sided with the Western Empire of the moment creating chaos all over the world. This is a thumbnail sketch of the heart of the failure God’s people as a whole. If outsiders cannot see Christ when they look at the church, it is our own fault. Where is John the Baptist to call us back to God? And yes, Lawrence, I agree with you.
Your 1st statement nails it, unfortunately the self-styled ‘Christians’ who claim to have an irrefutable knowledge of God’s will and purpose actually know the least. Most of the have embraced Lucifer’s false “Gospel of Prosperity”, which is really the Gospel according to Mammon. They have forgotten (or deleted, as with the Epistle of St. James) Jesus statement that “you cannot worship both God and Mammon.”
Good thumbnail analysis of church involvement in politics.
Considering the influence Freemasonry had on the founding of the U.S. it would be more appropriate to require students to read Morals & Dogma and Common Sense.
My English professor at CCNY taught that you couldn’t understand much of Western literature if you were unacquainted with the New Testament and made it assigned reading. (He wasn’t a Christian.) I am against teaching the New Testament in elementary schools because a) other religions’ texts are not taught and b) the purpose of teaching it is not to educate but indoctrinate. There is great value in the teachings of Christ which do not require that he be seen as divine. I think mocking religion is unwise because religion CAN be used to meet the great need in people to care for something larger that demands they be fair to others. The fact that religion has horribly been used as an excuse for mass murder is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water. Unfortunately, at this time in American history, it seems wisest to keep all religion out of the public schools.
As an atheist born and bred, I abhor all religious superstition. It absolutely should not be taught in any public educational institution. It is all indoctrination and should be abolished. If I were a parent whose children attended a public school where religion was forced on them, I’d yank them out of that school so fast it would make your head swim! When is the human race going to realize that there is no heaven, no hell, and that all events on earth our for us to solve on the basis of reason?
Clarence Darrow told a group of atheists that they make a religion out of there being no God. Most of the people of the world adhere to a religion, so if one is to know the world one should know what religion represents for people and what good can be gotten from it. I am not a Christian but I can see great value in Christ’s reasoning without the miracles and divine connection.
Yes indeed. And Marie-Louise von Franz has written a couple of books –small ones– that explore the point you brought up. P.S., thee are very readable, and not academically dense.
Fundamentally anti-America. This is the latest from the We Hate America Gang. The gang that hates America with a passion, and hates everything that America once stood for. Ben Franklin, as lifelong Quaker, would have opposed this. As would have almost all the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Conservative is not conservative. These conservatives are radicals pushing radical changes in America. Conservative is not conservative when it is radical.
Liberal is also not liberal, but that’s for another time.
Question to AI: Isn’t deism’s equivalent, monotheism; given the idea one God created everything? Deism may be a specific type of monotheism, because it believes in one creator God, but it is not equivalent to traditional monotheism because it rejects divine intervention (the selective blind faith belief that a deity or higher power directly steps into human affairs to change, guide, or save a situation). This applies to all blind faith belief systems – not only religions’. Are not all institutionalized regimes (where ultimate power is run by stable, established rules and formal organization) – claiming to be religious in their monotheistic faiths – while in practice, their fundamental religious beliefs are hierarchical (elitist), outright bigoted, and highly hypercritical of ‘others’ in outgroups? Stripping away the pretenses, take the Israeli ultra national Zionists view (purportedly serving the best interests of global Jewry) of all Arabs as Amalek; no more worthy than “human animals”. Oh, lest ‘we’ forgot, we’re talking about proselytizing/schooling of the young, in Texas, USA.
The only ‘Con’stitution that Trump is enforcing is the one of his very own makings; being the con artist superior he has always been.
And here ‘we’ are, falsely led to believe, we’re all in the same boat!
Thank you for this article. I was around for the Jerry Falwell nonsense, and it was very disturbing for rational people to watch what was going on. In general, I find religions to be disturbing when they try to force people, especially children, to believe in ancient fantasies. Religion should be a private thing, or at most something shared within a family due to traditions. It should never be forced on children in a public school. That was something that was attempted on me, but by age 7 I was rational enough to know I was being fed a bunch of dangerous nonsense.
I agree.
I suppose it doesn’t hurt to demonstrate the rules that have always been broken for a military religion weaponized for Roman occupation that has grown into a religious desire for empires to dominate the planet for profit motives justified by monotheistic religious self entitlement franchises while disregarding the technological sciences of addiction to weapons of warfare needed to crucify the world.
The blind seeing and the lame walking are metaphorical related to actual intelligence not reviving the Civil War with mass hypnosis placebo effect religion.
The one true creator of life is the ecological environment of Planet Earth.
Agreed.
Very well summed up ^^