Welcome back to the State of Faith — and I hope everyone had a restful Thanksgiving! I had a much-needed break and am excited to get back to making sense of how people understand, and live out, their faith and spirituality.
In Ohio, lawmakers passed a new bill that authorizes public school and state university teachers to instruct on the “positive impact of religion on American history.” The bill doesn’t mandate the positive instruction and framing, but aims to remove fear of violating the church-state boundary that teachers might feel when they discuss religion in class.
The bill originally referred specifically to Christianity, but an amendment in the House Education Committee expanded the language to include the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Known as the “Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act,” the bill passed on Nov. 19 and honors Kirk, a conservative Christian, who was assassinated in September on the campus of Utah Valley University. All Republicans voted in favor, while all Democrats voted against it.
The reasoning behind the bill is similar to the one behind the Ten Commandments poster laws and other efforts to integrate Christian values into education.
“The teaching of the historical, positive impact of religion on American history is consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the bill says. “An accurate and historical account of the influence of Judeo-Christian values on the freedom and liberties ingrained in our culture is imperative to reducing ignorance of American history, hate and violence within our society.”
The bill has stirred controversy among educators and highlighted ongoing tensions about how language about religion and religious objects show up in education and in public life.
Opponents see the language in the bill as a green light to prioritize certain religions over others and a threat to religious freedom. Ryan Jayne of The Freedom From Religion Foundation Action Fund called the bill “propaganda” and “not history.”
Ohio Rep. Sean Brennan, a Democrat, questioned whether the bill is addressing a real fear among teachers.
“Never once has a teacher ever told me they were afraid to teach about the positive or negative impact of religion on American history,” said Brennan, according to the Ohio Capital Journal. He went on: “The Constitution doesn’t prevent us from teaching about religion. It prevents us from promoting it. There’s a big difference there.”
Supporters, on the other hand, argue the act removes perceived restraints or self-censorship, allowing educators to explore faith’s impact on founding events and American identity freely.
“We really hope this will have a positive impact on the ability of teachers to teach the facts,” said State Rep. Mike Dovilla, who introduced the bill. He hopes it will be a model for civic education across the country.
"We really hope this will have a positive impact on the ability of teachers to teach the facts."
Ohio passed the 'Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act,' allowing schools to teach religion's role in U.S. history. @RepMikeDovilla, who introduced the bill, explains what it means for… pic.twitter.com/4b650WmdPF
The bill includes an extensive list of historical topics where there is an opportunity for teachers to highlight the influence of religion: “Organization of the pilgrims as a church”; “the religious implications of the Mayflower Compact, which was modeled on a church covenant”; the religious origins of the church and state separation idea; how the Ten Commandments shaped American law, and more.
That a bill specifically highlights “positive” influence of religion is notable in itself. After all, acknowledging religion as a significant part of major historical events, both positive and negative, is essential to presenting a complete and honest account of history.
The bill and the surrounding debate reveal just how sensitive and politically charged any discussion of religion’s influence in the public sphere has become. One of the key questions seems to be: how do teachers stay neutral while still acknowledging religion’s powerful influence on American history?
The previous State of Faith newsletter incorrectly attributed a quote. It was author Karen Swallow Prior who said the following: “In this attention economy, I think our greatest role is to help draw people’s attention — our own attention and our readers’ attention — to what is good, what is true, what is beautiful and what will bring healing that we need so badly right now.”
A new Sutherland Institute survey looks at Americans’ views on religion, focusing on the religiously unaffiliated “nones” and what can shift their perceptions of religions. You can find the full report here. The report surveyed 1,106 U.S. adults, where 395 identified as religiously unaffiliated.
The report found that the religiously unaffiliated improved their view of religion and its role in solving social issues after they were presented with 15 factual statements about the benefits of religion. (The number doubled from 23% to 46%.) “This demonstrates that evidence-based communication can meaningfully influence perceptions, even among skeptics,” according to the report.
The “nones,” according to the findings, also recognize religion’s psychological and social benefits, such as hope, meaning and community, but resist claims about moral authority or personal health benefits.
The religiously unaffiliated now surpass Catholics and evangelical protestants, and make up 28% of all Americans. Gen Z is the least religiously affiliated generation, with 34% identifying as “nones,” according to the survey.
I’ve had a DNA test kit sitting in my drawer for over a year. And this story is nudging me to finally do the test (even though I’m fairly certain I don’t have any Jewish heritage).
There is a rapidly growing global fascination with uncovering Jewish ancestry that’s driven largely by DNA testing, according to Forward. This curiosity is fueling a surge in non-Jews enrolling in online introduction-to-Judaism courses, especially at American Jewish University. The school’s Rabbi Tarlan Rabizadeh said: “What we’re seeing here is people who are not Jewish, who are taking the DNA test, discovering that they have even 2% Jewish heritage, and deciding to convert to Judaism.”