By Judd Legum
Training materials produced by the Florida Department of Education direct middle and high school teachers to indoctrinate students in the tenets of Christian nationalism, a right-wing effort to merge Christian and American identities. Thousands of Florida teachers, lured by cash stipends, have attended trainings featuring these materials.
A three-day training course on civic education, conducted throughout Florida in the summer of 2023, included a presentation on the “Influences of the Judeo-Christian Tradition” on the founding of the United States. According to speaker notes accompanying one slide, teachers were told that “Christianity challenged the notion that religion should be subservient to the goals of the state,” and the same hierarchy is reflected in America’s founding documents. That slide quotes the Bible to assert that “[c]ivil government must be respected, but the state is not God.” Teachers were told the same principle is embedded in the Declaration of Independence.
Popular Information obtained the slides from the Florida Freedom to Read Project, which received them from the Florida Department of Education after filing a public records request.
The next slide in the deck quotes an article by Peter Lillback, the president of Westminster Theological Seminary and the founder of The Providence Forum, an organization that promotes and defends Christian nationalism. The group’s executive director, Jerry Newcombe, writes a weekly column for World Net Daily — a far-right site known for publishing hundreds of stories falsely suggesting Obama was a Muslim born in Africa.
Lillback, a favorite of right-wing pundit Glenn Beck, is not a prominent historian. But Lillback is one of the original signatories of the Manhattan Declaration, a 2009 document calling for civil disobedience if the United States fails to adopt the views of right-wing Christians on abortion and same-sex marriage.
The slide quotes an article by Lillback that argues that there would be no freedom, no republic, and no constitution without religion. The speaker notes accompanying the slide emphasize that “the separation of Church and State did not mean the separation of God and government,” and all the founders were “steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
Amanda Tyler, the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and an expert in Christian nationalism, reviewed the entire presentation at Popular Information’s request. Tyler said that the “focus on the mythological founding of the country as a Christian nation, this use of cherry-picked history… is very much a marker of Christian nationalism.” According to Tyler, the aim of the presentation is “to solidify this ideology that equates being American to being Christian.” Tyler noted that the presentation does not address why, if religion was so essential to the structure of the government, the Constitution does not mention God at all.
Robert P. Jones, the president of the Public Religion Research Institute and the author of a newsletter on American Christianity, agreed, saying that the language in the slide deck is similar to what one would hear at “Christian nationalist rallies.” The term “Judeo-Christian,” Jones said, is frequently deployed in Christian nationalist circles as code for a white European Christian worldview.
Tyler said a more credible discussion of America’s founding would also include the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was written by Thomas Jefferson and served as the precursor to the First Amendment. The statute states that “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
Myndee Washington is a Florida middle school teacher who attended the in-person Florida Department of Education civics training in 2022 and 2023. Washington told Popular Information that, in one session, the presenters used the King James Bibles to illustrate their points. “I was absolutely gobsmacked,” she said.
Washington said that there was a heavy emphasis in the training on “dispelling the separation of church and state.” Teachers attending the training were told, according to Washington, “that there was no such thing because the founders were Congregationalists.” Congregationalists were Protestants who believed that members of a religious congregation should be able to manage their own affairs without the approval of any higher human authority. While many early American settlers were Congregationalists, many signatories of the Constitution were not.
Washington said that previously, Florida’s curriculum emphasized the influence of Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke on America’s founders. But Washington said that, in recent years, Enlightenment philosophers are mentioned “only very briefly” and much more emphasis is placed on religious influences. Washington believes that the training “emboldened” some Florida teachers to incorporate religious texts and dogma into their lessons.
Other slides in the teacher training claim, without any citations, that the basis of law in the United States is the Ten Commandments (“Decalogue”) and that the phrase “all men are created equal” is derived from the biblical concept that “man is made in the image of God.”
Andrew Whitehead, an associate professor at Indiana University-Indianapolis and the author of a book on Christian nationalism, said the materials produced by the Florida Department of Education are part of “the Christian nationalist project.” The purpose of the training, according to Whitehead, is to fuse “a very particular expression of Christianity with American civic life that the government upholds and vigorously defends.” Integrating these ideas into public school curriculum is a key goal of Christian nationalism, Whitehead said.
The problem, Whitehead explained, is this depiction of America is ahistorical. The founders had a variety of religious beliefs. George Washington rarely, if ever, took communion. The Declaration of Independence references a “creator” but not Jesus. Whitehead expressed concerns that Florida students with a different religious tradition (or none at all) would have the false impression that they are somehow less representative of a “true” American.
David Aldred, an adjunct professor at Hillsborough Community College, and Michelle Cowden, a civics and literacy coach with the Florida Department of Education, delivered the presentation on the influences of the Judeo-Christian tradition. They did not respond to a request for comment.
Online indoctrination
Along with the in-person training, the Florida Department of Education offered a 50-hour online civics training. Teachers who successfully completed the online training received a $3,000 bonus. Popular Information spoke to a Florida teacher who completed the training in 2023. The teacher spoke on the condition of anonymity, fearing that discussing the online training publicly could result in professional retaliation.
The teacher shared her recollections and contemporaneous notes of the online training with Popular Information. Overall, the teacher said, “there was a real emphasis and focus on the idea of the 10 Commandments underlying our governmental principles.” She noted that most of the online instructors were “from private Christian colleges outside the state of Florida.”
A session on “The Political Thought of America’s Founders” was presented by Hillsdale College Professor Matthew Spalding. Hillsdale College is a right-wing Christian institution seeking an overhaul of K-12 education that aligns with its conservative ideology. Former President Trump named Spalding as the executive director of the 1776 Commission, which sought to create a new narrative of American history. The Commission’s final report downplayed the role of slavery in American history and compared progressivism to fascism. Tyler says both Hillsdale College and the 1776 Commission are connected to the Christian nationalist movement.
According to the teacher’s notes, Spalding said that “Protestant Christianity” had the “greatest influence” on the political thought of America’s founders. Samuel Gregg of the conservative Acton Institute presented another online session specifically covering the “Judeo-Christian” influence on America’s founders. The teacher’s notes indicate that Gregg said, “Judaism and Christianity were more influential on the founders than any Enlightenment philosopher.” Tyler says that both of these claims are indicative of Christian nationalist ideology. It is foundational, Tyler says, to “the false idea that the country was founded by Christians to privilege Christianity in law and policy.”
Judd Legum is the founder and author of Popular Information, where this piece initially appeared. See a follow-up, “Florida civics training links ‘cancel culture’ to mass murder.” Popular Information is an independent newsletter dedicated to accountability journalism. Reach him at [email protected].
Bill Lyon says
I have a couple of questions: 1.) Who authorized the use of my tax dollars to pay for this so-called “education”? 2.) Would Jesus vote for Mr. Trump?
The Sour Kraut says
1) Had to be Duh-Santis
2) Felon Trump? You’ve got to be kidding!
Jim says
Excellent questions. Unfortunately for no. 1 – the Florida Republican Legislature passed it and signed by the Republican governor. As for no. 2, it continues to amaze me that so many “Christian”, “religious” people in this country can so blindly follow their orange Jesus right over the edge of the cliff.
Part of American strength has been our religious freedom and, until the current neo-Nazi’s got in power that has always been a source of pride for us. Now, if you’re not a card-carrying Christian, you are a lower form of life. I wish people would start seeing the parallels with 1930’s Germany.
Nephew Of Uncle Sam says
Well put Jim, yet I would disagree with only one thing; “Now, if you’re not a card-carrying Christian, you are a lower form of life.” We’re actually a higher form of life because we can see what they’re trying to do and we don’t follow a false prophet, 91 Time Indicted, Convicted Rapist off a cliff.
People need to Vote Smart starting right in their own backyard, find out which NPA Candidates are GOP hacks this election and don’t Vote for them or you’ll get the same result.
James says
“… Render unto Caesar… ”
– Jesus Christ
James says
I can’t speak for Jesus, but…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/07/christian-nationalists-embrace-trump-as-their-savior-will-they-be-his
… another one of those hard-to-believe (but true?) Guardian articles.
Ray W. says
David Hackett-Fischer, the historian who wrote a comprehensive history of the British colonies prior to the Revolution and beyond, addressed the issue of the First Amendment in this manner:
“In 1789, the coexistence of the regional cultures was further protected by the Bill of Rights. A case in point was the first sentence of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This deceptively simple statement was another regional compromise of high complexity. Its intent was to preserve religious freedom of Virginia and Pennsylvania, and at the same time to protect the religious establishments of New England from outside interference. As time passed its meaning was enlarged; a measure which was written to protect regional pluralism became a basis for national libertarianism.”
If what Hackett-Fischer writes accurately portrays the idea that the original intent of our founding fathers was to protect regional religious pluralism and that it was only many years later that the meaning changed to fit a developing national ideal of libertarianism that didn’t exist at the time of the founding of our country, then what does that say for the current political claim that we need to strictly follow the original intent of our founding fathers? How can one political party claim that original intent exists for some parts of our Constitution and that a living, changing constitution applies to the First Amendment?
In a footnote to the above-quoted paragraph, Hackett-Fischer writes:
“Madison’s first draft of this clause embodied attitudes that prevailed in Virginia and Pennsylvania: ‘The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience shall be in any manner, or any pretext, infringed.’ It was strenuously opposed by New England congressmen (Sherman and Huntington of Conn., Gerry of Mass., Livermore of N.H.), who protested it would be ‘extremely hurtful to the cause of religion in ‘congregations to the Eastward.’ The opposition was regional rather than ideological; it included both Federalists and antifederalists, or as Elbridge Gerry preferred to call them, ‘rats and antirats.’ The final wording was a regional compromise.”
Again, if Hackett-Fischer correctly captures the religious sentiments of some but not all of our founding fathers, the issues of the First Amendment were never a national issue, they were regional in scope. Again, there does not appear to have been a monolithic founding father. Our founding fathers held disparate religious views and had to compromise in order to pass a Bill of Rights. Madison clearly wrote his first draft to protect the civil rights of the individual from outside religious beliefs or practices. Again, this necessity to compromise belies the argument that we were and are a nation founded on a single monolithic Christian religion, in this case allegedly Congregationalism.
According to Hackett-Fischer, there were six differing religious movements in pre-Revolutionary War America.
1. The Anglican Episcopy dominated Virginia, which was settled by British immigrants from the southern and western counties in England. This form of faith favored a national church and a union of church and crown, ruled by bishops and priests.
2. The Presbyterians hailed from Northern Ireland, lowland Scotland and the northern borders of England. They, too, favored a national church, but one ruled by ministers and elders; it emphasized conversion and evangelism. The Presbyterians settled in the backcountry that ran down the mountains from western New York to north Georgia and northwestern South Carolina.
3. The Congregationalists were “a mixed confederacy of independent congregations and weak synods.” Leaving the eastern English counties, the Congregationalists settled in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
4. The Separatists “believed in the autonomy of each congregation, and wished to separate themselves from the corruption of an unreformed national church.” These were the Pilgrims who founded the Plymouth Colony.
5. The Anabaptists added a sixth point to the five points of Calvinism: “[B]aptism should be restricted to regenerate Christians.” “Most Baptists believed in the separation of church and state., primarily to preserve the church from spiritual pollution.” They founded the colony of Rhode Island.
6. The Quakers believed that “Jesus died not merely for a chosen few but for everyone, and that a Holy Spirit called an Inner Light dwelled within all people.” “Quakers rejected the legitimacy of established churches, ordained clergy and formal liturgy. Their meetings for worship centered upon the movement of the spirit.” The Quakers left the English midlands and founded the colonies of West Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Frankly, if America was settled by British immigrants who hailed from four different regions at four different periods of time and if they carried six different religious philosophies with them as they crossed the sea, then any judicial candidate who tells a judicial nominations commission that he or she believes that original intent is the correct way to interpret the Constitution at the time it was founded simply does not know what he or she is talking about. There was then and there is not now such a thing as an “original intent.” There is no monolithic founding father. The Constitution was nothing more or less than a compilation of many compromises between founders who held many and widely varied religious faiths.
We live in an age where Republicans are no longer conservative. Republicans no longer believe in the separation of powers; they now believe that all power should center in the executive. Republicans no longer believe in individual rights for all; they now believe in a form of libertarian hegemony, i.e., they revere only those individual rights they prefer and abhor any other form of individual rights for “others.” Republicans no longer believe in the rule of law, unless it is the type of law that only they favor.
Were we ever solely a Congregationalist nation? Centuries of historical study tells us we were not. Teaching our children’s teachers that we were Congregationalist then and are Congregationalist now is simply a fallacy. Forcing our teachers to regurgitate an historical fallacy to our children? Garbage in, garbage out.
James says
Well Ray. Could it be then that at the root of some of the distain for Biden is simply that he is Catholic?
Just asking.
Ray W. says
Hello James.
If one holds fast to a form of religious hegemony that requires one to reject any form of faith other than their own, then, yes, it is valid to argue that some of the disdain for Biden is simply that he is Catholic.
Hegemony means that a certain few are entitled to constitutional protection of his or her belief, but not others. As one 17th century Virginia Cavalier put it: “I love liberty. I hate equality.” Many of the immigrating Cavaliers believed in liberty for a limited class of special people. They never intended to share liberty with the masses. The chosen few had the God-given right to liberty.
The great religious question of the 18th century British colonials was whether God was the ship’s captain or the ship’s builder. If God was the ship’s captain, then the ancient religious maxim that God had created kings to rule and protect men, was absolute. To these colonists, they could never rebel against King George III. God had created King George III to rule and protect them and they could not rebel against God’s command.
This was the Tory view. Many of the Tories sided with the monarchy and some fought against the rebels. When the British were defeated, many of the Tories fled to Canada or back to Great Britain.
The rebel view was that God was the ship’s builder and that men had the God-given right to captain their own ship. If they were right, then God had gifted to them the greatest gift of all, the gift of reason, as Thomas Jefferson so famously wrote. Men had the right to use that great gift of reason to govern themselves. God was their Northern light, but theirs was a distant light on which to center them as they captained their own ship; theirs was to be an exercise of an independent form of reason. They told themselves what was right. This is why I put so much emphasis on the question of whether common sense is a process or a result. If common sense is a process, then we have to go through it for ourselves each and every time. If common sense is a result, then someone else can tell us what it means, without independent thought.
There is a vast difference. between the two points of view. Common sense as a process requires an independent jury to decide the truth each and every time. Common sense as a result allows a former president to decide for us all whether he is guilty of a crime. No prosecutors or judges are needed when a former president gets to decide for himself whether he is guilty. In a constitutional system where common sense is a process, a prosecutor is given the limited power to allege that a crime occurred, and the jurors are given the limited power to determine whether the evidence is enough to convict. Reason prevails. Each dispute is decided on its own merits. Men and women hold the right to captain their own ship.
Does every FlaglerLive reader better understand why I accept the widely shared philosophical view that there are only three great questions in life. Only three great questions that can never be fully answered. They are: How shall I live my life? How shall I be governed? How do I know what I know? According to this philosophy, none of us can ever fully know the answers to the many problems of life. We are to spend our lives attempting to answer each of the three great questions, knowing all the while that we will never fully succeed. The moment we think we have fully succeeded is the moment we lose the debate. And the greatest gift bestowed on mankind from heaven is the gift of reason, which we must unfailingly employ in our never-ceasing toil to come as close as we can to achieving the unachievable. We simply are mandated to think it through for ourselves.
As Nietzsche put it a few decades after the American Revolution: “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
To Nietzsche, there was no definitive way; it did not exist. The three great questions can never be fully answered; the eternal struggle to know will never be fully settled. The best each of us can do is engage in the exercise of intellectual rigor through the framework of the three forms of reason that were taught to our founding fathers: inductive, deductive and argumentative.
Academia describes the roughly half-century from about 1760 to about 1810 as the Age of Reason. To our great benefit, our founding fathers used those few decades to create our liberal democratic Constitutional republic. Is it perfect? No. But it was never intended to be perfect. Reason taught them that perfection was unattainable. The best they could do was engage in the eternal struggle.
Laurel says
Ray W.: Again, thank you for your history lessons! It’s very important.
I’m sorry to say that many Americans don’t know, or never learned history or civics, and it’s getting worse. Last week we talked to a nice, young man around 20 years of age. He was born and raised in Miami, and the furthest he got away from Miami was Orlando. We told him we were living south of St. Augustine. He had never heard of it! Can you imagine? Didn’t know where it was, and had no clue of the oldest city in our country and its history, not to mention it exists within our state. It wasn’t taught. We started teaching what we could in the conversation.
Now, our youth are being taught historical distortions. You are absolutely correct, these *Republicans* are NOT conservatives.
The dude says
Onward Christian soldiers!!!!
But seriously, my wife (was a teacher in St John’s) and 13yo daughter are thriving away from those horrible FL schools. Those schools ended up being the main reason we ended up moving. There’s many many reasons not to live in Palm Coast, and we were for the most part doing well in spite of this. But the schools and the whacked out school board were the determining factor in our decision to move.
Concerned says
Most people are born into their religion or choose one after they grow up, explore their differences and find that one really speaks to their core beliefs. Religion can guide us to live morally, peacefully, respectfully and kindly or it can be used to gain power against other’s beliefs, ostracize, control, divide and intimidate. Our creator is interpreted in many different and wonderful ways and each belief offers guidance to navigate life in order to make the world a kind and safe place. So, instead of trying to control and force one religious belief on others, isn’t it our duty to use laws of behavioral civility to achieve order and safety while embracing the beauty and diversity of each religion to morally guide as many humans as possible?
Ray W. says
Thank you.
TV says
Thank you
Pogo says
@Behold
https://www.google.com/search?q=bokononism
Related
As stated
https://www.google.com/search?q=establishment+clause
As stated
https://www.google.com/search?q=comparative+religion
Billly says
But training in leftist communist woke tenets is ok?
Laurel says
Billly: That’s not happening. Change the channel.
Another Concerned Taxpayer !!! says
So despite all of the staged political outrage of the supposed indoctrination in our public schools, the state of Florida Congress and Senate, along with our idiot Governor are using taxpayer dollars to train our teachers how to indoctrinate better. Apparently what they were really saying is that they will be in charge of the indoctrination of their particular beliefs. What ever happened to separation of church and state? Welcome to Stepford Florida!!!
Geri K says
This is appalling. In spite of the great wealth in Florida, and its high cost of living, Florida is now 50th in the nation in teacher pay. Our compensation of teachers, who are trying to build our future, has reached the absolute bottom, thanks to our Republican state legislature, which not only starves the public education system of funds, but then criticizes it for failing to cause all children to excel, and transfers its meager stipend to unregulated private schools, starving it further. No wonder the teachers hold their noses and accept $3000 to endure these abhorrent, anti-American courses. We must vote the Republicans out of our state legislature.
JOE D says
Wow…what a CLIFF Florida is falling over. I guess since this “certification” program (joke that it is) is VOLUNTARY (at the MOMENT) and gets the teachers $3000, then I would say take the course, pocket the money, put the workbooks in a drawer, and continue teaching your classes the way you KNOW the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was founded upon. 1. All “men” are created Equal 2. There should be no establishment of a STATE religion 3. There should be a separation of CHURCH and STATE, so that no particular religion is favored or regarded more highly than another…and each person is allowed the FREEDOM to practice the religion of their CHOICE ( or not).
I PERSONALLY am a practicing ROMAN CATHOLIC…originally sent my children to a Catholic School (until it just got too expensive to do so). Once they were enrolled in Public School, they attended RELIGIOUS EDUCATION classes at my parish church on Sunday morning between MASS services. Other than BASIC MORAL training, I did not expect the PUBLIC school to be choosing what RELIGIOUS doctrine my child was taught. There was ( in high school, and with parental PERMISSION) a SOCIOLOGY Elective course on “Comparing Religions.”
During that time period, my children had Catholic friends, Protestant Christian friends, Jewish friends, Muslin friends and Hindu friends ( we lived near an internationally recognized EAST COAST University, so there were the children of international graduate students attending my children’s local schools). It was an unbelievably ENRICHING experience for my children (and myself)…learning different cultures (and the FOODS)!
It was TRULY what a PUBLIC education SHOULD BE….not exactly what the Florida current administration and leadership is shoving down teachers, and students throats in the form of approved CURRICULUM!
I’m sure there will soon be lawsuits (again at the cost of Florida Taxpayers), if large portions of this new Judeo-Christian focused curriculum are actually taught in Florida Public Schools.
Didn’t this separation of church and state issue get hammered out in front of the SUPREME COURT….DECADES ago?
Oh yeah, that was a VERY different SUPREME COURT than the current one presiding.
Atwp says
Keep voting Republican, it will get worse guranteed. Florida teachers on the lowest level of pay in the nation what a shame. Am sure a lot of teachers cast their for Desantis, look at what happened. I love when bad numbers come from Republican states. Love when Republican leaders cause people to regret their vote for them. Love when Republican leaders cause public harm, and they show disrespect for the tax paying working folk. Love when Republican Leaders make themselves look immature Desantis, and down right foolish and crazy Trump. The lying immature Republicans I just love it.
James says
I’ll just comment one last time regarding the matter behind this article as I see it.
The argument seems at first glance, plausible… in our country secular law can in all likelyhood be traced back to religious origins… as is the case most likely in all civilizations.
But why just “traced back,” why not for instance, crack open the bible and utilize the commandments themselves?
Man is finite in his knowledge, he can be inspired by the laws set forth by God, but he cannot wield them. That is ultimately for God alone.
And it might in fact be a sin to do so… the thought had occurred to me that perhaps it could be considered a strange form of idolatry.
Somewhere along the long path to modern civilization mankind realized this and hence, modern secular law was born. Imperfect at times yes, but always open to revision, discussion and improvement.
That’s all I will add to this matter… I am far afield from my area of intellectual interests.
And it is no small step, nor giant leap for any man to go from simply being a “cracked-pot” to a “crackpot.”
Just some observations and an opinion.