EDITORIAL: Texas showing nation why separation of church and state needed

As Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick seeks to tear down any wall that separates church and state, he only shows why one is so necessary.

In remarks this month marking the release of the Trump administration's Religious Liberty Commission's 224-page report, Patrick, the commission's chair, said of the separation of church and state, "From this day forward, that phrase should have no power over people of all faiths ever again in America."

Patrick has it backward.

The separation of church and state is what empowers the practice of all faiths in America. Without such a division, the state could favor one religion over others, or tether policies to a particular faith over the objections of its citizens.

Texas - where officials have devoted public dollars to subsidize private religious education, mandated the display of the Ten Commandments and certain biblical readings in public schools, and turned Islam into a political target - exemplifies how this report would seek to shift the nation and why a healthy separation of church and state is as vital as it is constitutional.

While the separation of church and state is not literally part of the First Amendment, the phrasing, which derives from Thomas Jefferson, accurately reflects the combined power of the establishment clause and free exercise clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

We are simultaneously free from a state-mandated religion and free to practice our own faith - or not hold religious beliefs. This is the balance in American civic and spiritual life that Patrick, President Donald Trump and others such as Texas Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate Ken Paxton want to trample.

They often frame their argument through the lens of religious liberty, but this isn't quite complete. Patrick and Co. offer less a defense of religious practice and more the assertion of a preferred religious view on the public. In Texas, this means projecting a certain brand of Christianity regardless of what people believe or practice in their homes.

The report soft-pedals this reality. It argues that a "wall" implies religion and government are in conflict with one another whereas "perhaps a better analogy is that religious liberty acts as a bridge between church and state."

Please. Tell that to the myriad Texas officials who have fueled Islamophobia by stoking unfounded fears about Shariah while supporting various (fruitless) state and federal investigations and lawsuits into the Plano area development known as EPIC City, since renamed the Meadow, that included plans for a mosque and religious school.

It's hard to imagine Texas officials responding the same way to a development that might include space for a church and a Christian school.

The report also claims that "remedying the misunderstanding of the proper ordering of church and state does not involve or require advocating for 'theocracy' or even the total elimination of any separation between church and state. While there are inevitably points of tension that arise, we can honor the distinct but complementary roles of the church and state."

Again, this misrepresents reality. Yes, tensions do arise between an individual's expression of faith and government: the baker who does not want to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, the family that objects to vaccinations, the football coach who wants to lead a Christian prayer after a game.

But there is a significant difference between an individual arguing for his or her religious expression, and the state requiring preferred religious messaging in public spaces, such as biblical instruction and the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

If a school district were to mandate Buddhist precepts in classrooms or Quran readings, perhaps the conversation about religious expression in Texas would be much different.

It was Jefferson who, in an 1802 letter to Danbury Baptists in Connecticut, wrote of "a wall of separation between Church & State." And it was the Supreme Court in 1947 that mainstreamed this language, which Patrick says has no constitutional basis.

Among the report's 12 recommendations is a new reading of the establishment clause and the separation of church and state, creating know-your-rights posters for the public, establishing a hotline to report violations of religious liberty, confirming judges "with the courage to decide religious liberty cases on the merits" and repealing the Johnson Amendment, which bars religious groups from endorsing candidates and undertaking other political acts as a condition of maintaining tax-exempt status.

Of course, as Texas has shown, there is no guarantee such recommendations would be applied equally across all faiths but rather would serve as tools to advance preferred religious views.

While we have witnessed how faith has transformed and inspired lives, and how it can be central to the health and vibrancy of communities, these recommendations come at a time when religion is playing a less central role in Americans' lives. The polling firm Gallup reports that in 1952, 75% of respondents said religion was "very important" in their lives. By 2025, 47% of respondents said this.

To the degree Patrick, Trump and others are concerned about this trend, they have misplaced their faith in the heavy hand of government to effect change. As Jefferson wrote in his 1802 letter, "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God."

Religious freedom doesn't occur despite the separation of church and state but rather is preserved by it. A wall between church and state guards against the impulses of public officials such as Patrick.

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.