Lawmakers in Texas are advancing a bill that would require public schools to exclusively use BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini [In the Year of Our Lord]) when referencing historical dates.
For years, there has been debate among historical scholars over whether to use the BC/AD convention, or the more religiously neutral BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era).
The controversial bill (SB 2617) easily passed a Senate vote 22-9 in May, and it now moves to the House.
From Neutral to New Testament
The bill's authors say the measure will force instructors to properly teach history, protecting children from secularized political distortion.
Under the bill, all public school districts in Texas would be required to use BC and AD when referring to historical dates during instruction.
State Sen. Brandon Creighton says the legislation is a no-brainer to protect kids from what he argues is secular bias. “By putting this into law,” he said, “the Senate bill protects Texas' long-standing approach to teaching history clearly, consistently, without political distortion — giving parents, teachers and students confidence in a consistent foundation for learning.”
Politicizing Education?
Meanwhile, critics argue that not only is this legislation superfluous, but that its sponsors are the ones politicizing education by firmly wedging Christianity into the classroom.
Though BC and AD are still widely in use in the United States, historians and much of the international community have moved towards using BCE and CE instead, citing both religious neutrality and historical accuracy.
Where Do BCE and CE Come From?
The BCE/CE convention gained popularity in the 19th and 20th centuries as part of a broader movement toward secular, inclusive scholarship.
BCE/CE retains the same calendar system (with year 1 still marking the traditional date of Jesus’s birth) but removes explicitly Christian language.
This shift was advanced in academic, interfaith, and scientific communities – and by Jewish scholars in particular – who saw “Before Christ” and “Anno Domini” as reflecting Christian theological assumptions they do not share. Many Jewish people, who do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah or a divine figure, prefer BCE/CE.
Interestingly, the Texas bill comes a few years after other lawmakers in the state proposed adopting BCE/CE as the date standard in education. That effort ultimately failed.
Unforeseen Consequences?
Critics argue that the new bill could have cascading and potentially unforeseen consequences. For example, it could force schools to exclude history books which use BCE/CE, potentially leaving Texas students with outdated textbooks (and force school districts to purchase costly new materials to align with the law).
Others said it doesn’t make any logical sense to use BC/AD when referring to non-Western civilizations. Would it make any sense to use BC and AD when teaching about Japanese history, a country where less than 2% of the population identifies as Christian?
Where to Draw the Line
Still others laughed at what they saw as an absurd situation. As one Reddit user joked, “can’t wait till the Texas legislature learns that the days of the week are named after non-Christian gods and tries to change them.”
Another Reddit user made an interesting point about substituting different letters for BC/AD:
If I'm being completely honest, I still feel like the whole BCE/CE thing is silly, because you're only changing the name and still using Jesus's approximate birth year for reference. It's like how I also think "Happy Holidays" is a bit silly, because it assumes 1) that every culture has a winter holiday to contribute, and 2) that it's necessarily the important one, as opposed to looking at what days people already consider significant.
What do you make of the controversy? Should Texas schools adopt BC/AD exclusively? Is using BCE/CE a “political distortion,” as the bill's proponents suggest – or are they the ones pushing politics?
84 comments
-
Bishop William Dusenberry, DD
In my SHP (Secular Humanist Pantheist) denomination of the ULC, in which I’m a minister; whenever the subject of the beginning of the Christian era arises, I pontificate that there’s no primary evidence that a historical Jesus ever actually existed; however Saul (now known as St. Paul) probably did — and he is credited with being the creator of Christianity. Paul, was born, 32 BCE, never claimed to have seen, met, or spoken with a historical Jesus — so teaching public school kids anything about Jesus, should be categorized as Christian mythology, as when discussing Zeus is, when discussing Greek mythology. If any of my ULC minister brethren know of any “primary” evidence, that an actual historical Jesus ever existed, I hope they’ll share it with their ULC brethren on this site.
-
Rudolph M Garza
The first people to believe in Jesus were the Ebionites, a Jewish sect that emerged around the time of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem around 70 CE predating early Christians. They did not believe in the divinity of Jesus but instead thought of him as prophet. They also did not believe in the virgin birth. That story evolves later. The Catholic Church as an institution was created after Constantine lifted the ban on Christianity. Constantine, by the way, was a henotheist that existed in 4th century when the Catholics begin writing their history retroactively.
If you start with the origin of Judaism, the first mention of "israel" was by Pharoah Merneptah's Stele. He mentions them as a tribe in Canaan. My research shows them a henotheistic believing in El and his wife Asherah with their offspring Ba'al, and Ywh which evolves into Yhwh later when they settle on just "God" and are then referred to as Jews. There is no history kept by Rameses of the Jews, the plagues, or his army being destroyed by drowning. Had such an event happened the foreign merchants would have also mentioned it, especially the Greeks. That sort of economic and military devastation would have left Egypt too weak to defend against her enemies. Since that didn't happen, it would support my belief neither did Exodus.
I have done enough research on this to convince myself the Old Testament and Judaism evolved over time from the time of Pharoah Merneptah when he conquered Canaan which means Genesis is not the beginning (creationism). The Jews began as pagans with many gods.
You can believe what you want and follow your own path. You might have an interesting journey of your own!
The real history apart from Scripture, tells a different story of
-
Minister Rob
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
-
Rudolph M Garza
A link from Wikipedia? If you went to college, what grade would you expect from your professor if that's the only thing in your paper?
LOL
-
-
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
"Protecting children from secularized.." is all we need to see here. In other words, forcing religion into law, which is against the Constitution. Anything that evens the playing field for people who aren't Christian, i.e. upholding the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion, is targeted to deletion by extremists like these. They want to remove the freedom of anyone who isn't Christian to use secular date systems.
-
Rev. Mark
Changing the names of eras to make people feel "better" is just moronic. I went to school learning about BC/AD and it needs to stay that way as the calendar and our history of events are all based on that timeline.
For those that still argue this, what's next... changing our calendar because it was based on the Roman Calendar? Since they no longer exist to defend their calendar, who is stopping from trying to "rewrite" that too??? Nobody complains that the Chinese New Year is not on the same date as our New Year. THEY did not force us to change. They accepted our New Year and continue to celebrate theirs.
-
Satu Akira
I honestly wish politicians would leave religion out of politics. And be respectful of all people and their beliefs. I think BC, BCE, CE should be left alone let the people choose what they would like to use.
-
Religion as a Weapon is Wrong
We used to interpret BC as Before Christ and AD as after death, an easy way to remember. As far as Texas is concerned, I don't care what they do. It's a different country and they do whatever they want to do if it makes them money. I do feel sorry for the citizens and especially the children of Texas because if they ever leave, they are shocked if they haven't paid attention.
-
Patricia Law
Another Christian whine fest about nothing as a Buddhist I do not need everything through Christian lens
-
Bernard Lee Quintin
Religions and beliefs come and go, i feel like we are on the cusp of anothor way of thinking( beliefs). Especially with the rise of A.I. and science. Some are in a hurry indoctronize and instill their ways of thinking as the law of the land. As history has shown us things change! Maybe we will come together as human beings? Just wishful thinkig.
-
Jack Anthony Wilson
I was raised with BC and AD. Never heard of the other two. Can’t well enough be left alone? Do we next need to change what year it is? After all, 2025 refers to 2,025 years following the death of Christ. I do have to agree, however, States do go overboard in mandates on religious beliefs and their integration into the schools.
-
Kevin Joseph Kervick
A nation has one culture. Otherwise it is nothing. A state is a small nation.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Only Texas still thinks its a republic, and often acts like it.
-
Warren Calvin Wall
Don't forget the Republic of California. Them too.
-
-
-
Rev. Donut
Yeah, it is confusing. BC and AD are so much easier.
I prefer ACDC... Let's Rock.
-
Rudolph M Garza
All civilizations find a way to keep dates and measure time. Many civilizations have found some rather ingenious ways. Which one do you choose?
Many nations today use more than one calendar. One for their culture or religion and then add the Gregorian calendar which is used internationally.
Texas wants their own changes? Why not? And it might be fun for each state to get creative! How about a national calendar? Maybe a Congressional debate will be fun to see on this matter!
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Leave it to Texas. While the rest of the world moves into the 21st Century, they are choosing to stay locked in eras of discrimination that isn't straight, white, and Christian. BC/AD only loosely applies to the time when walked on this earth. I get it that it has always been the "standard" by which the years were numbered, but "Current era" and "Before Current Era" also describe it well.
-
Daniel Todd Kamm
Cede Texas back to Mexico. Would that solve their lauded and long suffering immigration problems and its subsequent drain on the American Tax payers? Probably not... immigration is a business. It's a bad business. Especially if one is brown (er) than those who consider themselves white (er). What would it be like if all those white people in Texas suddenly found themselves citizens of Mexico again? G-d help Mexico. Up the TACO!
tk
-
Dorothy Hawkins
The BC/AD issue is similar to the photographer issue: made up to create a fuss because the larger secular community chose to change the designations. In my opinion, the people making a big fuss over it are engaging in "a tempest in a teapot".
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Such an abundance of bigoted, male bovine fecal matter comes from the state of Texas.
-
Rev. BH
Not just "male".
-
Keith Ramsey
Living in Texas, I can tell you it isn't just male. This is just the Christian sect that is trying to force their religious beliefs on the rest of Texas, this is just the next step in what they've been doing for the last 30 years since Conservatives took over the state in the early 90s.
Welcome to the Bible Belt...
-
-
James Riggle-Johnson
62% of the US identify as Christian. That leaves a lot of people who don’t believe in Jesus being a Savior. So, Texas doesn’t want textbooks to reflect the NEW that really isn’t that new way of thinking regarding history. Is keeping American children ignorant of what is changing in the world really the best way to go? This brings “change is scary” to a whole new level. I guess these kids can grow up and wonder why they were never told about it? Yes, BCE and CE still use the same date pattern, but it is more palatable for the 68% of the world and the 38% of our country who aren’t Christian.
-
Robert Gagnon
It's just a reference date. Everyone since the Roman empire has been using it. So how offensive is it? He was born, he did exist and his birth is a reference date, not a theological statement. Find something else to be offended over. Like everything costing more.
-
Rev. Mike Eggleston
There's no real, independent, evidence that "he" ever existed. If BC/AD is "just a reference date", what wrong with using BCE/CE instead?
-
Rev. BH
Yes there is, Mike. Do a little reading on the Historical Jesus (not the mythical one). Here's a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
-
Keith Ramsey
Sorry BH, but Wikipedia has NEVER been a great source, because anyone can edit it.
-
Michael Hunt
Well, yes and no. Wikipedia can be a great starting point, when well sourced, to find the original, primary sources for a topic. It shouldn't be a primary source, but it can provide good, accurate information when you are wanting a basic understanding of a subject.
-
Rev. BH
Amen, Michael.
And Keith, have you ever tried editing Wiki? I did. I gave up. Ain't easy. Go to your library, They have research assistants, encyclopedias, history books, etc. for your further study.
-
-
-
-
Robert Gagnon
Guess the Jews and Romans that were there were not independent enough. Why change something already set in stone. Because you can? On course the Gulf of America was changed in AD.
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Lol, yep, that's a great perspective!
-
-
Reverend Paula Copp
I don’t understand why this is even newsworthy. Archaeologists, geologists and other scientists use BCE and CE . If schools want their students to be uneducated and remain ignorant, that’s fine. It won’t stop with BC and AD. It will become crap like dinosaurs and people living together, chem trail nonsense and the latest conspiracy theory du jour. The dumbing down of our country is nearly complete.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Speaking of chem trails, I noticed a dramatic drop in patterned vapor trails since pumpkin head took office. Maybe the all the hub is true. Wouldn't be the first time our government tested chems and bugs in us. There's a 1977 law that gives the DOD permission to do just that. Reading federal laws like that is sure to bring a brother down like a toothache.
As far as AD and BC, I just translate whatever they use in my head like another language. It's really no big deal.
It might be noteworthy to teach BC and AD for historical reasons. If students ask what happened to split the timeline like that they'll have an answer. A human was born that forever changed the course of man. Even the Chinese use BC (bce) and AD(ce). They're just different words that mean the same thing. Making a law for it just wastes money though.
-
Keith Ramsey
No one mentioned Chem Trails but you, but that conspiracy theory was destroyed several times. They are still there, I see them daily, but I live near DFW airport.
They won't have an answer about the split between BC and AD. Because there is almost no documented information as to what really happened at that time. All we really have is word of mouth on what happened.... remember the kids game.. Telephone... we have no way to know what really happened.
-
-
-
Najah P Tamargo
Najah Tamargo-USA
Please.....seriously??? Government, or religious idoligy, need to stay out of schools. Our current "white washed" history is bad enough. It doesn't teach our children REAL history as it is. So why add more confusion!!
-
KJ Palmer
I don't feel it's a political distortion, I feel it's a religious distortion. One that is pushing to further the agenda of the United States being a Christian nation. I don't know what's so difficult about people leaving their religious beliefs at home and in their specific place of worship. Not everyone believes the same things, religiously or politically. People need to learn that it's okay to have your own beliefs, and for everyone else to have their own beliefs, you can discuss those beliefs with one another if others are willing to do so, but forcing beliefs on one another isn't the answer. Forcing BC/AD on everyone is just one more way to say "Christian beliefs are the only beliefs that matter, and our government is now backing us on that", instead of leaving the separation between church and state, as it was intended when we became a nation of our own due to wanting political and religious freedom. I feel that religion is a lot like sexuality, I don't care who you are, or who you love, but I don't want to see two people groping one another in public spaces; just as I don't care who you are and what you believe, I'm willing to have open-minded conversations and learn from you, if you're willing to respectfully learn about and discuss my beliefs, but we don't need to shove these things down one another's throats uninvited.
-
James Mounts
Can you please tell me in which of our founding documents, ie. Constitution or Declaration of Independence, you found "separation of church and state"? I have looked, but I can't find it anywhere, so I will be grateful to you if you point it out to me.
-
Nick
You are correct. The words “separation of church and state" don’t appear in the Constitution. The First Amendment contains the Establishment Clause. “The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another.” This means there must be a separation of church and state. It’s complicated. Look it up for an in-depth explanation.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Thank you, Nick. Finally, someone explained it in plain simply english.
-
Elizabeth Susan Cosgrove
"Separation of Church and State" comes from a letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptists by Thomas Jefferson. A little history to fill some color: CT, MA were both founded by Puritans, and they were, at the time very strict Calvinists. They would later evolve in to the Congregationalists, the folks with white churches on nearly every New England town Green. So, the Danbury Baptists were in something of a fraught situation, as they were a suspect minority in the state, so they were very interested in the Establishment Clause of the new Constitution
-
James Mounts
Nick I wonder why it is called "The Establishment Clause" and not "The Favoring Clause". If that had been the intention of the convention, they would have written it that way. Instead, they made no mention of favoring. It is always easy for progressives to revise the meaning to fit their current feelings, but Madison was an intelligent man; if he had meant it, he would have said it.
-
Michael Hunt
It's called the Establishment Clause because it prevents the government from establishing a national religion, but it also prevents the state from favoring one religion over another because that would be a law passed respecting one religion over the other.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
-
James Mounts
I fear you have gone a bridge too far. I know "liberals" view The Constitution as changeable to meet current views -- especially theirs, but the original intent of the convention is what matters. If you deny me, as a civil servant, the ability to live my religion, it is you who is violating the first amendment, not I.
-
Michael Hunt
This isn't just "liberals" view, it's constitutional law experts who say this. It's the supreme court who has said this. Conservatives seem to have no concern about legal precedent anymore and are changing the law of the land to fit their agenda. Keeping the state out of the church and the church of the state was the founder's original intent when writing the first amendment.
-
James Mounts
Oh, I am sorry, I didn't realize that all "constitutional law experts" were without bias. I will notify my law-professor uncle who is conservative that he can no longer teach the doctrine of original intent, because ALL the real experts disagree. Funny though how it took the Warren Court to tell the founding fathers what they intended 100 years before.
-
Michael Hunt
I didn't say all of them do, nor did I ever say "real experts." I see how you may of inferred that but that was not my intention. I also never said that they were without bias; bias is inherent in everyone.
However, would you concede that your conservative uncle also has a bias towards conservative interpretations of the constitution? If we call into question a "liberal" law expert because of bias, don't we also have to call into question a "conservative" law expert?
Additionally, understanding the exact intent of the founding fathers is not cut and dry, nor did Madison intend for their intent to matter. Per this MTSU article, "James Madison, one of the drafters of the Constitution, felt strongly that future interpretation of the document should not rest primarily on the intentions of the framers, but on the intentions of the people who, through their state representatives, ratified the Constitution." That, to me, seems to support the idea that the constitution should be a living document that changes for the needs of the people. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/original-intent/
I'm not sure what the Warren Court has to do with this discussion as it was Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 that affirmed a wall of separation between the church and state. The Warren Court served from 1953-1969.
-
James Mounts
1.Pardon my gaff about when exactly the Warren Court existed. Point was that for quite some time before that, we abided by the intent of the founders. 2. I deliberately said "my conservative uncle" so that you would understand I recognize bias on both sides. 3. Madison did, indeed, provide a mechanism for future generations to modify The Constitution, it was through the amendment process which required ratification by the electors. He didn't expect that a few political appointees would legislate from the bench. 4. 86
-
Keith Ramsey
The Constitution was a LIVING DOCUMENT, that isn't a liberal view, that is how the courts have viewed it for decades.
No one is denying you the ability to live your religion, but you are not allowed to force your religious beliefs on others. That would be you violating the First Amendment.
-
-
Joseph Grieco
Good Point - prior to 1788, both Connecticut and Massachusetts had laws on the books that supposedly restricted public office holding to Congregationalists. It was fairly regularly ignored, but was enough that not just the Baptists, but also Anglicans/Episcopalians and Methodists were often excluded. Go down to Virginia and they had laws stating a person needed to be an Episcopalian to hold office. Go up to Maryland, and they passed laws specifically prohibiting Catholics from holding office. The irony here is John Carroll of Carrollton - one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence - was Roman Catholic. And finally, recall the letter written by President George Washington to the Jewish Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, promising them freedom to practice their religion.
-
-
Keith Ramsey
You just destroyed your own argument.
It is called the Establishment Clause and not the Favoring Clause because the didn't want the government to force religious beliefs on others...which is part of what the Revolution was about.
You are mistaken, it was written the way it was because Great Briton at the time was trying to force the religion of the state on the colonies.
They didn't want the government to favor a religion. That is what you want them to do. Key thing about your post...
" It is always easy for progressives to revise the meaning to fit their current feelings," - With this you are trying to say that progress is wrong.
So do you not like the 40 hour work week? Do you like that women have the right to vote? Do you like that children are not forced to work?
The real question comes back to what is wrong with progress? It is thanks to Progressives that you have this website and the entire ULC
-
James Mounts
It was written the way it was, to prevent the government passing a law making one particular religion an official religion. It also prevents the government interfering with your (civil servant) practicing your religion. Madison never intended that the government be anti religion., or anti a specific religion. Also, if you call what has happened to this country over the last four years progress, I tremble for our future.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
More like what's been happening for the last 45 years. I'm renaming the Reagan Revolution the Reagan Revulsion.
-
-
James Mounts
It was written the way it was, to prevent the government passing a law making one particular religion an official religion. It also prevents the government interfering with your (civil servant) practicing your religion. Madison never intended that the government be anti religion., or anti a specific religion. Also, if you call what has happened to this country over the last four years progress, I tremble for our future.
-
Keith Ramsey
Except you got it incorrect again, and the courts have said this. Madison DID intend that the government not be for any specific religion. They didn't want the country to be for or controlled by a religion, that is part of what the revolution was about.
I have no idea what you are talking about "over the last four years"... What was wrong with the last four years?
The government isn't interfering with you practicing your religion, but don't expect everyone to accept you forcing your religion on them.
-
James Mounts
Perhaps I have not made myself clear enough. I agree the 1st amendment says government cannot establish a religion. Madison was very clear on that. The problem comes when we read a letter from Jefferson in which he states "separation of church and state". and think it is part of our founding documents. I hate to resort to quoting Madilyn Murray, but "freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM religion".
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Colleen McAllister
Leave the dating system alone. People (like me) will use whichever set they choose and as it changes nothing all textbooks and such will remain acceptable. The Jewish Comminity keeps track of their own dates as well as other cultures. People need to stop being so sensitive. Jesus wasn't born in the year Zero anyway.
-
ServantOfJudgement
I did not know this but you might find it interesting.
AD= Anno Domini, "in the year of our Lord"
As it turns out year zero was the year the king showed up. Super cool.
-
Rev. Mike Eggleston
There's no evidence that "he" showed up at all and there was no year zero either. The year immediately following 1 BCE is 1 CE.
-
Michael Hunt
The year he supposedly showed up... we don't have a birth certificate or formal proof of his birth, just what the Bible claims.
-
Joseph Grieco
You may want to double check your math. The Gospels establish that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was king. Depending on the historical source referenced, Herod ruled until either 1 or 3 BCE. Because Joseph led his family into Egypt for safety, and avoided returning while Archelaus was in power. As the latter started rule in 4 BCE, that puts the exile into Egypt well before then because it would have to be while Herod the Great exercised control. One potential monkey wrench into this theory - had Herod ordered the execution of all baby boys under two years old in the precincts of Bethlehem, the Roman chroniclers would have noted it - they didn't.
-
-
-
Bishop William Dusenberry, DD
Arrogance (of all the thousands of religious mythologies that have ever been, and are yet to come; mine’s the only one that’s true) has no boundaries, when one actually believes that their God’s on their side — especially when such contemptible arrogance is reinforced by the Offices of the USA President, and the Governor of Texas. Such arrogant arrogance is usually a prelude for a fascist theocracy in which we ULC ministers will be amongst the first ordained clergy-persons, to be consigned to the ash-heap of history.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Lol over a timeline descriptor? The world is coming to an end because we're using AD and BC instead of CE and BCE which mean the exact same thing and point to the exact same time with zero wiggle room?
And Trump did it? Lol, good times!
-
Rev. Mike Eggleston
If it's so unimportant, why are the Texas legislators insisting that BC/AD be used instead of BCE/CE?
-
Warren Calvin Wall
Ignorance?
-
Keith Ramsey
Ignorance or they want to force their beliefs and/or controls on everyone else.
-
-
-
Elizabeth Susan Cosgrove
For some the year is 5785, others 1446. I gave up on the Zoroastrian calendaring. But why does Europe get pride of place? I know the answer, do you?
-
Bishop William Dusenberry, DD
In my denomination of the ULC, we use the date 4,549,172,025 as the actual “Birth of the Earth” because that’s the actual number of times that the Earth has orbited the Sun; ULC ministers who actually preach to congregations should do likewise.
-
Rev'd Andrew
How do we "know" the Earth has orbited the sun 4,549,172,025 times, or is it an educated guess, just like the Gregorian calendar?
-
Bishop William Dusenberry, DD
Did you notice how much of a coincidence it was (is) that the actual number of times our Earth has orbited tied our Sun, ends in 2025 — which, to the best of my knowledge, is the only “educated guess” until some astrophysicist (such as Neil deGrass Tyson) proves to me otherwise. This “actual” number will be revised, when, and if, it requires revision.
-
-
-
-
-
-
John P Maher
SEPERATION of CHURCH and STATE, READ IT DUMMIES, TEACH WHAT YOU WANT IN YOUR CHURCH or HOME BUT NOT IN ANY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DUH, DUH, and DUH AGAIN ?????????????????
-
ServantOfJudgement
To be fair John, the term was used by planet earth until the 20th century. It's a time marker that all nations on the planet used and still use.
For the record, the Constitution doesn't contain those words you told us to read.
Perhaps you should read it. You wouldn't want to be a dummy like the rest of us dummies. My public school used AD and BC, I'll bet yours did too.
-
Keith Ramsey
Sorry SOJ, you are once again wrong.
For the record, the Constitution IMPLIES separation of church and state.
-
Warren Calvin Wall
And you are still wrong. The Constitution says that government cannot establish a State religion and that all religions have equal standing and the right to practice their religion shall not be infringed upon. It simply means that the government can't pick a favorite and must treat them all equally from a legal standpoint. Individuals within the government may practice their own religion as they deem fit as long as it doesn't interfere with their official, Constitutional duties. By the way, churches of any religion should not have a tax free status.
-
Keith Ramsey
I agree that Churches should not get to be Tax Exempt.
But I'm not wrong, the Constitution does imply a separation of Church and State.
-
-
-
Joseph Grieco
To be fair, the term was only used in "christianized countries" - approximately 1/3 of the world's population. It has since been forced on everyone else as regards to diplomacy, commerce, and airline schedules.
-
Rev'd Andrew
In China it is year 4723, In Japan it is Reiwa 7; the current Hebrew year is 5785; it is 2568 BE in Thailand...
-
-
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
This nation was never meant to be a theocracy.
-
Rev. BH
Doesn't Texas have any useful matters to attend to?
-
Patricia Ann Gross
My response exactly.
-
Keith Ramsey
Apparently not, they want the 10 Commandments in all classrooms, and our Gov and Lt Gov want the Bible in all classrooms as well.
They are even hinting at teaching the Bible in classrooms also, while ignoring all other religions.
Like Oklahoma is forcing the Bible in all classrooms, but the only Bible that is acceptable is the Trump Bible.
-
Brien
Well, the wild pig population is down so they need something to do.
-
Joseph Grieco
There are a lot of things that Texas SHOULD be doing, like caring for impoverished children. Unfortunately, they would rather fight their culture wars. Remember, we are talking about the State where they are trying to get Genesis 1-2 taught as given in all geology, biology and history texts. The irony is there are settlements throughout the region that predate Bishop Usher's decision of when the world was created (like Jericho).
-
Alexander Clarke
If you have been to Texas then you would know the answer is no they don't
-
If teaching the Bible in churches isn't making people more Christ-like, then what's the point of putting it in schools? Instead of the 10 Commandments and Bibles in schools, how about giving the kids lunch instead?