Inside the movement to make Idaho a ‘Christian State' — and how that affects Latter-day Saints
But their definition excludes a quarter of the population who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not to mention those in the state who belong to other religions or no religion at all.
Over the past five years, the Idaho Family Policy Center has become a legislative powerhouse, drafting, sponsoring and training lawmakers to debate a host of bills promoting Christian values in public spaces.
This year the organization pushed to mandate daily Bible reading in public schools. Though the policy never received a floor vote, the organization has vowed to bring it back next year, with the proposal representing just the beginning of what the group envisions for the state.
Religious litmus tests in Idaho?
Idaho Family Policy Center president Blaine Conzatti told the Deseret News he would not oppose declaring Idaho a 'Christian state' and implementing religious tests for public office, although he clarified these are not his short-term goals.
While the Supreme Court struck them down in 1961, provisions to prevent non-Christians from office are not new or radical, according to Conzatti. Many early American states incorporated religious tests requiring a belief in the Christian God, or a specific affiliation to Protestant sects.
Conzatti does not advocate for states to put their stamp of approval on one specific denomination but he does draw a line between 'historic Christianity,' based on the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and the faith of Latter-day Saints.
While they share many beliefs in common with Conzatti, some of the roughly one-third of Idaho lawmakers who belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say this approach could alienate the state's nearly half million members, and threatens religious pluralism.
'Mr. Conzatti, unfortunately, would not consider the majority faith in my legislative district to be Christian,' said Rep. Josh Wheeler, a Republican who represents the southeast corner of Idaho. 'That right there shows you the danger of becoming too narrow in what you require in policy that brings faith into the public square.'
Since Wheeler entered the statehouse in 2023, legislators have introduced a record number of bills, with 'a large majority' of those originating from groups like the Idaho Family Policy Center, Wheeler said.
The organization has had some major victories like the 2023 passage of bills letting parents sue libraries that carry sexually offensive books and letting students sue for encountering members of the opposite sex in public bathrooms.
The Idaho Family Policy Center is characterized by its relentless approach, providing lawmakers with several versions of a bill to introduce each session to make it more likely that efforts like daily Bible reading will eventually pass, according to Wheeler.
'What I was surprised by is the way that this influence kind of shapes the whole legislative process in Idaho,' Wheeler said.
But these legislative wins may ultimately come at the expense of broader goals to spread Christian values across society, Wheeler said, because they don't take into account the needs of all state residents.
What the founders intended?
In a series of email responses, Conzatti said that his political mission rests on the belief that the Founding Fathers crafted constitutions with the assumption that governments would actively promote what Conzatti calls 'biblical Christianity.'
'We are a Christian nation, as our founders at both the federal and state level affirmed,' Conzatti told the Deseret News. 'Put simply, we want our public schools and local governments to acknowledge God, in ways consistent with the history and tradition of our state and nation.'
To support his conclusion, Conzatti, who studied government and law at Liberty University, cites numerous sources from the American Revolution and late 19th century where founders and Supreme Court justices affirmed the nation's Christian foundations.
Drawing on Federalist leader Fisher Ames, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) by Justice Joseph Story and Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), Conzatti argues that the First Amendment was never meant to put a wall between traditional Christianity and policymaking.
His view is the opposite, that the maintenance of constitutional governance depends on the 'governmental promotion of biblical Christianity,' and that forgetting this has threatened American liberty, led to increased crime and weakened the family.
'Both policymakers and voters alike should take this opportunity to return to those biblical principles that made America a great place to work, worship, and raise families,' Conzatti said.
Conzatti said he does not believe state-endorsed Christianity needs to come at the expense of religious liberty. The founding fathers, Conzatti said, were also firm believers in the natural right to freedom of conscience.
While Conzatti is consistent in stating that voters of every state should have the power to choose what 'religious values and system of morality their state government will reflect,' he said 'biblical Christianity' is the only worldview that can sustain the country.
'We can — and we should — openly promote biblical Christian values and acknowledge God in our governmental affairs," Conzatti said. 'Idaho Family Policy Center affirms the freedom of all religious minorities to live out their faith, and we advocate for the religious freedom of everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.'
Idaho's history of religious discrimination
Republican Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen, who represents the area west of Idaho Falls, said proposals for the state to come out in transparent support of a certain interpretation of Christianity have 'been on turbocharge over the last few years.'
Groups like Idaho Family Policy Center have an 'outsized influence' in Idaho politics because of the partnerships they have developed with many sitting lawmakers and prospective primary challengers, Mickelsen said.
While some of their initiatives align with conservative small government principles, like allowing tax dollars to follow students outside of public school, others would expand government through increased litigation, spending and regulations, according to Mickelsen.
An approach to social issues that takes control away from local governments is not just heavy-handed, it could create a precedent that infringes on the kind of pluralism that protects religious diversity, Mickelsen said.
'I think that we're getting back to a very slippery slope of being like the Church of England, or the Roman Catholic influence in Italy,' Mickelsen said. 'When's this going to stop? What's good enough for them?'
Even though the 14th Amendment extended the Constitution's prohibition on religious tests to the states in 1868, just after Idaho became a territory, in the state's early history there was an effort to exclude Latter-day Saints from political life.
Despite Latter-day Saint missionaries being among the first Europeans to settle in Idaho, the territory's laws in the 1880s, and its first state constitution, required an 'Idaho Test Oath' that banned supporters of groups that practiced polygamy from voting, serving on juries or holding office.
The Supreme Court upheld the law in an unanimous ruling in 1890 — the same year the church ended the practice of plural marriage. And while enforcement ended later in the 1890s, the language that had earlier disenfranchised Latter-day Saint voters was not removed from the Idaho State Constitution until 1982.
Personal faith in the public sphere
Like Wheeler, Mickelsen, who is also a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pointed to the church's seminary program as an example of how to bring religion into the public square without imposing on others.
In southeast Idaho, as in Utah, high school students are given release time to leave campus for one period to attend church seminary buildings that are often built next door to the school.
Former Republican Rep. Chenele Dixon, who was defeated in a primary in 2024 after opposing an Idaho Family Policy Center proposal, said she shared Wheeler and Mickelsen's view that an individual's faith should influence their policy decisions, and that this is healthy for society.
During her single term in office, Dixon supported some bills written by the Idaho Family Policy Center that overlapped with her conservative views as a lifelong Republican, she said.
But she said she thought other bills seemed like solutions in search of problems that the Idaho Family Policy Center had stirred up in an effort to box out views, or religions, they did not agree with.
'I do have a concern when we say that we need to be a Christian state, because there is always, I have found, a litmus test for Christianity with people that say that,' Dixon said.
'And actually, the folks who are saying that, don't have room for LDS people either, and I think a lot of LDS people don't understand that.'
Correction: The Idaho Family Policy Center was not directly involved in lobbying for bills to require the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms and to allow chaplains to serve as school counselors.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

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


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
No proof Hamas routinely stole UN aid, Israeli military officials say
Now, with hunger at crisis levels in the territory, Israel is coming under increased international pressure over its conduct of the war in Gaza and the humanitarian suffering it has brought. Doctors in the territory say that an increasing number of their patients are suffering from -- and dying of -- starvation. More than 100 aid agencies and rights groups warned this past week of 'mass starvation' and implored Israel to lift restrictions on humanitarian assistance. The European Union and at least 28 governments, including Israeli allies like Britain, France, and Canada, issued a joint statement condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid' to Gaza's 2 million Palestinian residents. Advertisement Israel has largely brushed off the criticism. David Mencer, a government spokesperson, said this past week that there was 'no famine caused by Israel.' Instead, he blamed Hamas and poor coordination by the United Nations for any food shortages. Advertisement Israel moved in May toward replacing the UN-led aid system that had been in place for most of the 21-month war in Gaza, opting instead to back a private, American-run operation guarded by armed US contractors in areas controlled by Israeli military forces. Some aid still comes into Gaza through the United Nations and other organizations. The new system has proved to be much deadlier for Palestinians trying to obtain food handouts. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, almost 1,100 people have been killed by gunfire on their way to get food handouts under the new system, in many cases by Israeli soldiers who opened fire on hungry crowds. Israeli officials have said they fired shots in the air in some instances because the crowds came too close or endangered their forces. The military officials who spoke to The New York Times said that the original UN aid operation was relatively reliable and less vulnerable to Hamas interference than the operations of many of the other groups bringing aid into Gaza. That's largely because the United Nations managed its own supply chain and handled distribution directly inside Gaza. Hamas did steal from some of the smaller organizations that donated aid, as those groups were not always on the ground to oversee distribution, according to the senior Israeli officials and others involved in the matter. But, they say, there was no evidence that Hamas regularly stole from the United Nations, which provided the largest chunk of the aid. A Hamas representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment. An internal US government analysis came to a similar conclusion, Reuters reported Friday. It found no evidence of systematic Hamas theft of US-funded humanitarian supplies, the report said. Advertisement 'For months, we and other organizations were dragged through the mud by accusations that Hamas steals from us,' said Georgios Petropoulos, a former UN official in Gaza who oversaw aid coordination with Israel for nearly 13 months of war. The senior military officials and others interviewed by the Times spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on behalf of the military or government. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a statement, the military said that it has been 'well documented' that Hamas has routinely 'exploited humanitarian aid to fund terrorist activities.' But the military did not dispute the assessment that there was no evidence that Hamas regularly stole aid from the United Nations. The Israeli government and military have often clashed over how to conduct the war in Gaza. Early last year, top commanders urged a cease-fire with Hamas to secure the release of hostages. Netanyahu's government instead expanded the ground operation in southern Gaza. Israel used the rationale that Hamas steals aid when it cut off all food and other supplies to Gaza between March and May. In March, after a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel collapsed, Netanyahu said: 'Hamas is currently taking control of all supplies and goods entering Gaza,' and he declared that Israel would prevent anything from entering the territory. That blockade, and problems with a new aid system that launched in May, brought hunger and starvation in Gaza to the current crisis levels. For most of the war, the UN was the largest single source of aid entering Gaza, according to data from the Israeli military unit that oversees policy in the territory. Advertisement Now, the new aid system is managed instead by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private American company led by a former CIA agent. It was intended to eventually replace international aid organizations and the UN role. But it has only a few distribution hubs, compared with hundreds under the former UN-run operation. The new system's rollout at the end of May was quickly followed by near-daily episodes of deadly violence near distribution sites. Desperate and hungry Palestinians must go to the few aid distribution sites located in areas controlled by Israeli forces. The hours of operation are limited and supplies run out, so crowds arrive early, with some walking for miles to get there. Since May 19, when Israel allowed emergency supplies to resume entering Gaza after its two-month blockade, half of the aid has been distributed by the United Nations and international organizations, with the other half coming through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the Israeli military says. Petropoulos welcomed the notion that some Israeli officials had recognized the UN-led aid system as effective during the war. But he said he wished that endorsement had come much sooner. 'If the UN had been taken at face value months ago, we wouldn't have wasted all this time and Gazans wouldn't be starving and being shot at trying to feed their families,' he said. This article originally appeared in


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Pope Leo says migrants and refugees can bring light and aspiration from dark corners of the world
'In a world darkened by war and injustice, even when all seems lost, migrants and refugees stand as messengers of hope,' he said. 'Their courage and tenacity bear heroic testimony to a faith that sees beyond what our eyes can see and gives them the strength to defy death on the various contemporary migration routes.' Advertisement The remarks from Leo, who ascended to the papacy earlier this year to become the first American pope, come amid the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration. In recent months, Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles and other cities have sparked protests across the country, and a surge in detentions has led to immigrants being held in overcrowded facilities with deteriorating conditions. Pope Leo showed a special interest in the well-being of immigrants during his work before the Vatican and has been described as the 'first modern immigrant pope.' In a May meeting, he emphasized this side of his past to diplomats, telling them, 'My own story is that of a citizen, the descendant of immigrants, who in turn chose to emigrate.' Advertisement 'All of us, in the course of our lives, can find ourselves healthy or sick, employed or unemployed, living in our native land or in a foreign country, yet our dignity always remains unchanged: It is the dignity of a creature willed and loved by God,' he said. Before his papacy, Leo served the poor in Peru for decades and was especially concerned about Venezuelan migrants who fled there, opening churches as soup kitchens and asking priests to convert free spaces into makeshift refuges while bishop of Chiclayo. That side of his work has resonated with other leaders in the church. The Rev. Russell Pollitt, a Jesuit priest at Holy Trinity Catholic Church near Johannesburg, said in May that Leo 'seems to have been someone who was on the side of migrants and refugees flocking to Peru from Venezuela.' 'I think that's important, that we don't lose that. Migrants and refugees are becoming a sort of scapegoat for politicians,' he said. In this past week's letter, Leo stressed that communities that welcome migrants and refugees can become living witnesses to hope. 'In this way, migrants and refugees are recognized as brothers and sisters, part of a family in which they can express their talents and participate fully in community life.' He wished for spiritual protection for 'all those who are on the journey, as well as those who are working to accompany them.'


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Should universities negotiate with the Trump administration?
Advertisement Understanding the current turmoil requires holding in mind several distinct realities despite the tensions between them. First, higher education, particularly major research universities, is central to American preeminence in many scholarly and economic domains. Wildly exaggerated claims that they've been reduced to organizations promoting woke and Marxist indoctrination, are simply absurd, captured in the phrase ' That said, major problems in higher education have evolved to threaten our capacity to develop new knowledge and transmit existing knowledge to students and the broader society. Some fields within the humanities and social sciences have unfortunately evolved to resemble intellectual monocultures wherein engagement with legitimate alternative perspectives is rare, and a culture of self-silencing replaces vigorous engagement. Real and attempted Advertisement These and other problems must be addressed, and this requires internally-driven reform, as difficult as that is in the complex and Byzantine culture and governance of higher education. Accelerated by problems identified in the aftermath of the Hamas attack on Israel in 2023, progress on these matters has been made, though much more slowly than ideal. In that setting, the second Trump administration announced a war on higher education and made clear its intention to employ all the financial and regulatory weapons at its disposal to profoundly transform the university in a direction far from one dedicated to truth-seeking, but rather subservient to its specific ideology. The federal government has enormous power in this regard, some of it wielded in a manner that should be rejected by the courts, a direction that I fully support. But a reality causing confusion to many is that some of the inappropriate and illegal federal demands do overlap with real problems previously identified by many of those promoting internal reform. Given the disruption and crisis caused by the government stopping awarded grants, taxing endowments, threatening accreditation and other actions, and the attention drawn to this conflict by those extreme actions, might a settlement that accomplishes desirable outcomes, while defending against interventions that are inappropriate and illegal be possible? That is indeed the key question. Advertisement It is certainly possible that the pace of appropriate reform could be accelerated by the current moment of turbulence. Indeed, many of the external demands from the president, such as a policy of But the integrity and sustained impact of those reforms would be undermined if they are seen as responses to demands — 'capitulation' — rather than appropriate and justified university actions. There are internal constituencies content with current realities and opposed to such reforms, and they are more than happy to proclaim any actions as capitulation. And the Trump administration would gladly claim victory for any internal reforms as well. Navigating a path to produce appropriate reform acceptable to both skeptical elements of the faculty and a combative Trump administration will be a formidable challenge to Harvard President Alan Garber's leadership. Beyond the immediate reaction to a particular settlement, another issue looms. Is there good reason to believe that follow-up to such a settlement will not include additional demands and punishments based on claims that many vague negotiated terms have been insufficiently achieved? Should such reasonable concerns about the integrity of the other side cause a university like Columbia or Harvard to eschew negotiations, endure the profound punishment in the hope that the legal system comes to the rescue? This is not an entirely unreasonable position. But it's not the path I currently support. Let's take Harvard, reported now to be in negotiations of some kind. I'd like to see university leadership identify issues in response to federal demands that they are prepared to support and defend on their merits . As described above, some of these have already been announced, others, such as a possible university-wide institute to promote open inquiry, have been in development and could be announced in this setting. Advertisement If so, the reasons for taking such actions must be articulated and defended with great clarity as advancing core university values. And nothing beyond that should be agreed to. As in any negotiation, some issues will reside at the fuzzy border, requiring the judgment expected of strong leaders and for which they should be held accountable. But clear lines to protect academic freedom and institutional autonomy must be drawn and articulated. The reality is that we are at a totally unanticipated moment of both opportunity and threat to higher education. The mounting need for reform is confronting demands from a powerful and illiberal government that is using real problems to justify interventions designed to bring the institutions under their control. The threats are real, and immediate. And so is the opportunity. With eyes open, and their deepest values held close, university leaders and the communities that support them should explore the boundaries for reform offered by this rare moment of opportunity, fully cognizant of the threats of both action and inaction. The world is watching.