This article is the fourth in CPJ’s Ink & Impact series featuring young writers from across the country. In today’s political climate, often marked by cynicism and despair, CPJ’s annual Ink & Impact conference helps Christian young people become messengers of hope. In a world dominated by digital distractions, Ink & Impact develops writers who can articulate complex political topics in an approachable, nuanced way to inform the public. The views and opinions reflected in these articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of CPJ.
Texas is the buckle on the Bible Belt of the South. Like many southern states, Christianity is deeply ingrained in the culture and lifestyle. It is not uncommon for Texans who identify with other religious traditions, or who are completely religiously unaffiliated, to experience feeling out of place or isolated in a state that highly values regular Sunday church attendance.
For Christian Texans, who align with the predominant religion of the state, it can be easy to fall into an “insider/outsider” mentality—assuming that Christian norms are simply the default for everyone. But Christians are not called to exclusivity. Scripture calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves, which means committing to religious freedom and equal dignity for people of all faiths, creating spaces where people feel welcomed and respected regardless of their religious tradition. Recent legislation in Texas, however, raises concerns about how students who do not align with the Christian faith will experience their school environment.
The Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 11 in May 2025, which allows for a voluntary period of prayer and religious study in public schools. Texas schools were required by March 2026 to decide whether they would implement the daily devotional period. Only 15 of the 1,207 districts opted in, pointing towards a general lack of support and interest from the general public.
Schools that chose to implement a period of prayer are required to obtain signed consent forms from participating families, which waive parents’ right to sue the district. Additionally, the period of prayer is optional for students. Students who choose not to participate must be out of earshot and not physically present when the period takes place.
The decision is part of a larger national movement aimed at increasing the influence of Christianity in public education—such as requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms, allowing districts to use religiously affiliated chaplains to counsel students, and approving curriculum with Bible-based lessons.
The concern with Senate Bill 11 is not that it allows for prayer in public schools. In fact, prayer has always been allowed. There are no restrictions that prevent students in the public education system from practicing their faith in school whether through prayer, reading Scripture, or forming faith-based clubs, as long as they are not being disruptive toward the general learning environment.
The concern is that the bill implicitly privileges Christianity over other religious traditions.
Organizing prayer in schools creates an environment that could potentially foster exclusion, bias, and bullying. In Texas, for example, more than half of residents identify as Christians while 6% identify with other world religions and 26% are religiously unaffiliated. During a time of voluntary prayer or religious study, most students would likely pull out Bibles or partner with one another for prayer while leaving students who come from other religious backgrounds to feel excluded or confused. Particularly for students who do not practice any religious tradition and whose families choose not to consent to their participation, this period of prayer may feel awkward. If they are removed from the classroom while the rest of their peers participate in collective prayer, they might experience unnecessary and uncomfortable pressure to conform, be subject to bullying, or experience general feelings of isolation.
While some legislators are framing this bill as being neutral and open to all faiths, in practice, the Christian faith is likely to be privileged as Christianity is the dominant religion in the state. Additionally, some political leaders in Texas have made clear their hope that this bill will increase the influence of Christianity in public education, such as Attorney General Ken Paxton who encouraged districts to comply with Senate Bill 11 and, more specifically, encouraged students to use the prayer time to engage with The Lord’s Prayer. Because of the prominence of the Christian faith in Texas and pressure from political leaders, students are more likely to experience one faith as more normative than another.
But it is not just students who identify with other religious traditions or who are religiously unaffiliated who may be affected by this bill—it has the potential to weaken rather than strengthen the faith of young Christians who are navigating how to live out their faith in the public sphere.
Institutionalizing prayer creates pressure for Christian students, which blurs the line between willing religious expression and school-required religious activity. This pressure is likely to make religious practices like prayer and reading Scripture feel mandatory rather than genuine. A strong faith is one that is freely chosen, not forced.
It is tempting to overlook the unintended consequences of this bill for Christians and the broader public. Many Christians might be tempted to view any legislation that infuses Christianity into public education as a victory—a way to see more of God in the public sphere. Others might view this broader national movement of increasing the presence of Christianity in public schools through prayer, scripture, and religious symbolism as a form of evangelism. But legislation like this falls short of what faithful engagement in Christian public life requires. Rather than fostering genuine faith, it risks creating an environment where religious practice feels obligatory rather than freely chosen.
According to the Center for Public Justice’s guideline on religious freedom:
The religion of some people may be only a matter of worship or private conviction. The religion of others may entail obligations to serve their neighbors, educate their children, and carry out their work and civic duties as part of an entire way of life in obedience to God. Whatever the case, government does not have the authority to define true religion and thus must protect the religious freedom of all citizens.
Public justice requires the government to protect religious freedom for all people of all faiths as well as to protect those who are religiously unaffiliated. When the government oversteps in that domain, giving preference to one faith over another, it undermines not only religious freedom but the rich integrity of the faith itself.
Additionally, Senate Bill 11 interferes with the distinct role of a child’s family in their religious and spiritual upbringing. Families should have the freedom to determine when, where, and how they practice their faith. According to the Center for Public Justice’s guideline on family:
Government’s policies should aim to uphold the integrity and social viability of families, which do not exist in a social, economic, or political vacuum. Public policy should, therefore, take carefully into account the ways that other institutions and the dynamics of society impact families positively and negatively from the earliest stages of family formation on through to the last stages of elder care.
When government enforces legislation that increases the influence of Christianity in public schools, it falls short in its institutional responsibility to protect the religious preferences of families from diverse backgrounds and conditions that prevent families from fulfilling their own unique responsibilities. For this reason, it is essential for Christians to think critically and carefully about how to faithfully use their influence in the public sphere of education in a way that allows families of diverse backgrounds to flourish.
When addressing issues like this and thinking about the role of faith in public education, there are likely two options that come to mind.
The Triumphalist Approach
The triumphalist approach is one in which Christians seek to shape public institutions entirely in their own image. In all reality, this is a far simpler approach. It is far easier for Christians to dominate the public sphere, whether in government, school, science, or medicine, rather than to put in the hard work of bringing their faith to the table as an asset to be shared in a society collectively dedicated to flourishing.
The Defeatist Approach
The second option is a defeatist approach. In this framework, Christians assume that, in order to participate in public spheres like education, they must leave their personal beliefs and convictions at the door. This approach is both impossible, as we cannot keep our religious beliefs from affecting how we operate in public spheres, and unproductive. A defeatist approach neglects the unique offerings the Christian tradition brings to the table and keeps Christians from offering their gifts and abilities to the service of collective flourishing.
The Transformative Approach
While it is tempting to choose one of these approaches, there is a third way.
A transformative framework invites Christians to deeply invest in the public education system with care and compassion. A transformative approach would create space for dialogue, friendship, and community among students of diverse religious backgrounds rather than pressuring conformity.
Practically, a transformative vision requires faithful and thoughtful Christian participation. Rather than withdrawing from local school communities, Christians have the opportunity to engage them fully. Retired Christians with spare time can invest in the lives of young people as reading buddies or classroom volunteers, practically sharing the love of Jesus by showing up for kids in a meaningful way. Parents of young Christians can intentionally forge meaningful relationships, offering support as they wrestle with big questions over raising their children amid current social realities. Christian teachers can live out their vocational calling by providing exceptional care and quality education for their students rather than pushing for Bible-based curriculum. Christian citizens can advocate for legislation that protects students from all backgrounds and religious traditions.
A transformative approach requires the most work, however, it is also the most rewarding. Not only does it cultivate an environment where all students feel welcomed and accepted, but it also creates a space for Christians to pour into their communities the way Scripture calls them to, living out their individual callings and using their unique gifts to support growth and flourishing in their communities.
The desire to see more of Christ in the public education system can reflect a sincere love for God and neighbor. But when that desire becomes more about influence and power than care and compassion, it can have unintended consequences. Many Christians truly want to see faith have a positive influence on public education, but Senate Bill 11 can have unintended consequences—resulting in more religiousness in schools but less space for the inclusiveness God calls us to. Christians have the opportunity to pour into their local communities, serving as the hands and feet of Jesus, and choosing inclusion and faithful participation in a culture marked by increasing division and discord.
Grace Simpson serves as CPJ’s Managing Editor. She is a graduate of Baylor University, where she majored in religion and professional writing and rhetoric. Her writing focuses on the intersection of faith, justice, and political engagement. Her work has been featured at Redeeming Babel, Good Faith Media, and The Baylor Line, as well as letters to the editor in The New York Times and The Waco Tribune–Herald.
Graphic by Center for Public Justice
