
Texas Republicans Want a Month Dedicated to God
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Texas Republicans' efforts to devote an entire month toward God's "Promise" are receiving pushback from constitutional advocates endorsing the separation of church and state.
Why It Matters
Multiple states have brought forward religious-based legislation, including the forced display of the Ten Commandments, and using the bureaucratic pulpit to exclaim that "Christ is King."
What To Know
House Concurrent Resolution 59 in Texas would, if passed, designate April as "Promise Month" for a 10-year period beginning with the legislation's adoption year.
The bill, sponsored by Republican State Representative Carrie Isaac, honors God's promises and includes a list mentioning multiple Bible verses, achieving salvation through Jesus Christ, and remarks on the religious history of the United States.
"The Declaration of Independence clearly reveals the fact that America was founded upon biblical principles and Christian values; the Bible had great influence on the founding of our great nation," the resolution reads.
Newsweek reached out to Isaac's office for comment.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which has been involved in past and current litigation against states like Oklahoma for issues like praying in public schools, said Texas conservatives' efforts to create a decade-long month devoted to Christianity are "effectively endorsing Christianity as the state-sanctioned religion."
File photo of the Texas State Capitol Building in downtown Austin.
File photo of the Texas State Capitol Building in downtown Austin.
Getty Images
"Our opposition comes not from a perspective of anti-religion, but pro-Constitution," Mickey Dollens, regional government affairs manager at FFRF, told Newsweek. "Anytime you have a state, whether it be North Dakota, Montana, or Oklahoma, that have introduced similar resolutions, they are elevating one religion over the others.
"In a way it's making other people second-class citizens. When we're talking to lawmakers, we often have to remind them that they have sworn an oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution and their own state's Constitution—and the majority of states have an establishment clause in their state's Constitution. We just ask that lawmakers uphold that that oath of office to respect everyone's freedom of and from religion."
This new legislation comes about two years after a successful Republican-backed bill, House Concurrent Resolution 29, was approved to designate the second-to-last week in April as "Texas Christian Heritage Week" for 10 years ending in 2033.
As previously hinted in the federal policy agenda Project 2025 ahead of the last presidential election, the Trump administration has leaned into making religious preservation more widespread.
In February, President Donald Trump established the White House Faith Office. Last week, he signed an executive order establishing the Religious Liberty Commission "to safeguard and promote America's founding principle of religious freedom."
He also created the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias at the Department of Justice, to end what the White House has described as "the anti-Christian weaponization of government and unlawful targeting of Christians."
Dollens said that FFRF and groups like it are attempting to raise awareness around bills like Texas's due to the symbolism of potentially leading down a path where laws rooted in Christian nationalism become the norm and may cause actual harm or take rights away.
"The beginning of that is laid in the groundwork with these religious proclamations that we're seeing, such as declaring April as 'Promise Month' and quoting biblical scripture in the state of Texas," Dollens said. "It's definitely setting and perpetuating this false narrative that Texas is a Christian state, and that the United States of America is a Christian nation—which it's not."
He added that the conversation regarding the role of Christianity in political discourse and the laws that result from it is in a "new era" far different from when "In God We Trust" was adopted as a national motto in 1956.
States like Oklahoma have been engaged in ongoing litigation against the FFRF, on issues like prayer in public schools and Trump-themed Bibles being used in classrooms.
"If you if you take that phrase, 'In God We Trust,' or in many preambles it recognizes a creator, those are very deistic in nature...Christian nationalism is not a religion but a political ideology that is used by controlling politicians to attain wealth to yield power and control over citizens," he said.
Dollens added: "We will defend people's right to practice, pray and believe in whatever they want as long as they're not hurting other people. But the moment that people in positions of power and authority start to use that legislative power to dictate their interpretations of religion onto all of society is when we have to stand up and fight for that constitutional principle of separation of church and state."
What People Are Saying
President Trump on Truth Social on Easter Sunday 2025: "We are, together, going to make America bigger, better, stronger, wealthier, healthier, and more religious, than it has ever been before!!! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!"
FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor, in a statement: "These government endorsements of Christianity serve a broader purpose. They normalize the false narrative perpetuated by extremists that Texas is a Christian state. This is then used to justify passing actual laws rooted in Christian nationalism that take away rights, violate religious freedoms, and cause real harm to those who don't conform to certain religious beliefs."
What Happens Next
Isaac's resolution has 47 co-sponsors, including 11 Democrats. It was last heard on May 1 and remains pending in committee.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill Ketter column: Showdown over federal powers
Federal courts rarely agree with presidents who discount the boundaries of the rule of law. But that hasn't deterred President Trump from his concept of unbridled executive powers. A worrisome example is his dismissive trait for the checks and balances of the co-equal legislative and judicial branches of government ingrained in the Constitution by the republic's Founders 247 years ago. Trump's first term set the stage for radical change with his selection of three conservative Supreme Court justices to join the three already on the nine-member tribunal. He also appointed over 240 federal appeals court and district court judges. Now some of those appointees are among the judges pumping the brakes on his goal to bend the government to his will, which he exaggerates as his electoral mandate. Still, it is damn the torpedoes. Trump's full speed ahead agenda has tested the nation's nerves with a storm of executive orders overriding Congress, firing thousands of federal workers, imposing teeter-totter tariffs, deporting illegal and legal migrants, stretching conflict of interest rules, punishing adversaries and causing economic uncertainty. That's just a synopsis. Trump has already signed over 150 executive orders, many of which encroach on legislative prerogatives or face constitutional challenge. If there is a savior in the system, it is the Supreme Court. Yet our judicial system is the institution most under Trump's thunderous attack. If the high court finds merit in his effort to upend constitutional restraints, the repercussion will be an authoritarian government. Congress and the judiciary will hold supplicant status. That may seem far-fetched. But take a few minutes to reflect on Trump's conduct to undermine the divided authority explicit in our three branches of government. His disruptive rhetoric bears witness. Asked by Atlantic magazine this spring how his second term so far differed from his first term, Trump replied: 'The first time, I had two things to do — run the country and survive. I had all these crooked guys. and the second time, I run the country and the world.' Back in February, Trump ordered a halt to tolls for vehicles entering New York City's traffic-clogged core streets, declaring on his social media site: 'CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!' In April, after several court orders blocking his worklist, he said: 'We cannot allow a handful of communist, radical-left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States.' Then came the Supreme Court ruling in May that Trump could not abruptly deport a group of Venezuelan migrants by ignoring their right to due process hearings in court. The president attacked the justices for 'not allowing me to do what I was elected to do. This is a bad and dangerous day for America.' Dangerous is a word some legal scholars apply to describe Trump's conduct toward immigrants. Due process, after all, is a right required by the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which makes clear 'any person' subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. laws is entitled to it. It is not just the rule of law and the Constitution that have invited Trump's ire. He recently lashed out at the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization, and the American Bar Association for misguiding him on selecting judges in his first term. He blamed them for bad advice at a time he was new to Washington, relying on their counsel for judges aligned with his political views and sense of justice — even though federal judges take an oath to rule impartially and uphold the rule of law. This time he's insisting on deeper vetting of candidates for judgeships. Foremost, they must be diehard loyalists to his conservative causes, the same principal characteristic used to pick his lemming-like cabinet. That's the legacy of a dictator, not a president who promised meritocracy.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Poll: Americans disapprove of spending public funds to put on military parade in Washington
Nearly 2 in 3 U.S. adults — 64% — oppose the use of government funds for this weekend's military parade in Washington, D.C., celebrating the Army's 250th birthday, according to new data from the NBC News Decision Desk Poll, powered by SurveyMonkey. Majorities of Democrats (88%) and independents (72%) oppose the use of government funds to put on the parade, while 65% of Republicans support it. Spending public funds on the parade is more popular among supporters of the MAGA movement (75% support), compared to Republicans who identify more as supporters of the party itself (56% support). The poll was conducted May 30-June 10 and surveyed 19,410 adults nationally, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. The Saturday parade to celebrate the Army, which also falls on both Flag Day and President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, will include about 6,600 soldiers, 50 aircraft and 150 vehicles, according to defense officials. There will be different sections for different portions of the Army's history, and the event is expected to feature an air show with flyovers and a demonstration by the Army's Golden Knights parachute team. But it's not clear how possible storms forecast for Saturday in the Washington area could affect those plans. The event could cost as much as $45 million, a price tag that includes up to $16 million for costs associated with potential damage to city streets caused by tanks driving on them. Respondents in the Decision Desk Poll were asked: "As you may know, President Trump has ordered a military parade in Washington D.C. on June 14th to commemorate the U.S. Army's 250th Birthday. Defense officials estimate the cost for this parade could be as much as 45 million dollars. Do you support or oppose the use of government funds for the parade?" Overall, 14% of adults said they strongly supported the use of government funds for the parade, and another 22% said they somewhat supported it. Meanwhile, 44% were strongly opposed and another 20% were somewhat opposed. In early May, Trump defended the cost of the parade by arguing on NBC News' "Meet the Press" that the total was 'peanuts compared to the value of doing it.' 'We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest Army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it,' he said. Democratic politicians have criticized Trump over the parade spending, saying the money could go to other causes. "You're not doing it to celebrate the Army's birthday, you're doing it to stroke Donald Trump's ego," Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., said last week during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to Army leaders discussing its budget. "There are lots of ways to celebrate the Army's birthday without blowing it all on a parade," she added. Others, including groups aligned with Democrats, are planning protests around the event in Washington and across the country, along with ongoing protests about Trump's immigration policy happening around the U.S. The NBC News Decision Desk Poll, powered by SurveyMonkey, was conducted from May 30-June 10 among a national sample of 19,410 adults aged 18 and over. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Two in three Americans oppose using tax money for military parade: poll
A new survey from the NBC Decision Desk Poll, powered by Survey Monkey, showed that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of the use of state funds for this weekend's military parade. On Saturday starting at 6:30 p.m., 150 vehicles, 50 aircraft and 6,600 soldiers will parade the street of Washington, D.C., to mark the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, which also coincides with President Trump's 79th birthday. Depending on the weather, there could also be an air show. The celebration is estimated to cost between $25 million and $45 million taxpayer dollars, according to the Army. The price also includes potential damage to public spaces caused by tanks driving on the streets. Overall, 88 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of Independents disapprove of the use of government funds, while 68 percent of Republicans support it. Within the Republican party, the MAGA faction approves up to 75 percent while more moderate Republicans approve at 56 percent. The question the poll asked respondents was: 'As you may know, President Trump has ordered a military parade in Washington D.C. on June 14th to commemorate the U.S. Army's 250th Birthday. Defense officials estimate the cost for this parade could be as much as 45 million dollars. Do you support or oppose the use of government funds for the parade?' Respondents were asked whether they supported or opposed, moderately or strongly. Fourteen percent of adults say they strongly support federal funding for the parade. In contrast, 44 percent say they strongly oppose it. Twenty-two percent say they somewhat support it compared to 20 percent who say they are somewhat opposed. The poll was conducted from May 30 to June 10 among 19,4100 adults nationwide. The margin of error stands at plus or minus 2.1 percent. An Associated Press-NORC Center of Public Affairs Research survey also confirmed that 60 percent of Americans said the parade was 'not a good use of government funds.' Democrats have had strong reactions to the parade. 'If it was really about celebrating military families, we could put $30 million toward helping them offset the cost of their child care, food assistance and tuition,' said Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) on X on June 5. 'We all like to enjoy a nice birthday party. But most of us don't celebrate with a $45 million taxpayer-funded military parade,' Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on X. This demonstration of force also contrasts with Trump's deployment of 4,000 members of the National Guard and 700 Marines to Los Angeles to squall protests over immigration raids. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.