Issue Analysis & Categorization

Education & Youth

Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the bulk of negative legislation sought by white Christian nationalists targets schools and youth. Young people, particularly those who aren’t already being influenced by a church, can be an especially appealing target for religious and ideological indoctrination. Research shows that individuals raised within a particular religious faith are likely to remain in that faith as they age. Younger children are particularly vulnerable to peer pressure, as they are still in the process of identity development and have yet to fully develop their capacity for reason.

In recent years there has been significant advocacy by white Christian nationalists to pass legislation to convince young people that America was founded as a Christian nation, in order to propagate this false version of history. These efforts seek to enshrine revisionist history into the law, conflate founding documents with religious ones, teach the bible in a devotional manner in schools, and require the display of religious messages and symbolism in schools. Especially over the last few years, there have been concerted efforts to censor school curriculums and to ban books from school libraries in order to prevent students from learning about and grappling with the complex history of race and oppression in the United States.

Moreover, because young people depend on the care of others, they are especially vulnerable to harms caused by the religious beliefs of their parents and caretakers. Sadly, religious beliefs are all too often used to justify conduct that can have a severely negative and lifelong impact on young people, including denial of medical care or dangerous practices like conversion therapy.

Positive Laws & Policies

Protection from Child Marriage

This item indicates laws that prohibit individuals below the age of majority (usually 18) from marrying. Because exceptions, such as those allowing parental consent, can be misused to force children to marry, we are only counting those laws which flatly prohibit the marriage of minors.

This issue is critically important because too frequently these marriages occur in religious sects in which very young girls are forced to marry much older men. Child brides forced into marriage have few options. As minors, they face legal dead ends if they want to end their marriage. In states where their parents (or spouse) have custody rights, organizations and shelters are unable to interfere with those rights. As a result, these children have no legal avenues to escape an abusive family or husband. They are too often removed from school, raped, and forced to live in poverty. The only way to give child brides the legal right to say “no” to marriage is to prohibit marriage among minors altogether.

Protection from Conversion Therapy

This item indicates laws designed to protect LGBTQ youth from dangerous and discredited conversion therapy. Conversion therapy consists of a variety of harmful practices which falsely claim to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. These laws generally apply through licensing restrictions that prevent licensed medical and mental health providers from conducting conversion therapy on youth under the age of 18. Generally, however, these laws are unable to regulate conversion therapy that is provided by religious clergy because they are usually not licensed providers.

Sex Education

This item examines how state laws and policies affect the quality of sex education in each state’s public schools, which can and should play an important role in providing comprehensive and medically accurate sex education. Comprehensive sex education helps to foster healthy relationships and development, reduces the risk of unintended pregnancy, and lowers the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Under this analysis, a state is considered to offer comprehensive sex education if school districts are required to offer such education and the curriculum covers a wide range of relevant issues beyond abstinence. A comprehensive curriculum generally teaches abstinence as the best method for avoiding STIs and unintended pregnancies while also teaching that contraception reduces the risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs, including HIV. Such programs should be inclusive and provide age-appropriate education about gender roles, sexual orientation, and gender identity. These programs also develop interpersonal and other communication skills and help young people explore their own values, goals, and options.

A state’s public school sex education curriculum is considered “abstinence only” if there are laws mandating that programs must exclusively or primarily promote abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage. By doing so, these programs tell students that abstinence is an unmarried person’s only moral option. This category also includes “abstinence-plus” programs, which provide some information about contraception in the context of strong abstinence messages. Many abstinence only programs offered in schools based on these state laws incorporate religious elements or promote religious values in ways that conflict with the separation of religion and government.

Homeschooling Laws

This item provides an assessment of state laws that regulate homeschooling. Although homeschooling is not always a religious issue, it cannot be denied that religious groups have long dominated this issue area. Unfortunately, such organizations have worked to stymie any reasonable requirements for homeschooling or to ensure the safety and well-being of homeschooled students.

For this assessment, we examined state homeschooling laws to determine if there are a few minimal educational and safety requirements. First, we determined whether state law requires homeschooling instructors (whether parents or outside instructors) to meet any qualification requirements. This is critical to ensure that those teaching homeschooled students (usually, but not always, parents) are capable of providing quality instruction.

Second, we examined whether state law requires evaluation of homeschooled students’ academic progress at least annually. Some states use standardized testing to measure progress, while other states require progress reports detailing what a child learned during a certain period of time. As part of this evaluation, we also looked for some type of remediation process so that efforts can be made to help homeschooled children when they fall behind.

Third, we examined whether state law protects children by disallowing homeschooling where an adult in the household has been convicted of certain crimes, such as homicide, aggravated assault, rape, or child abuse. Unfortunately, research has clearly shown that homeschooled children are at greater risk for abuse and neglect. Without basic protections in place, homeschooling can allow child abuse to go undetected because there can be a lack of contact with adults outside the home.

Finally, we looked at religious or other exemptions to homeschooling requirements. For example, some states exempt parents from homeschooling laws and oversight if the parents claim a religious objection to such requirements. This item also assesses broader limitations on oversight of homeschooling, such as state laws that explicitly prohibit any oversight of homeschooling by school districts.

Negative Laws & Policies

School Censorship Laws

View the National Summary Map for this issue.

A number of states have passed laws that prohibit schools from teaching matters that the state deems “divisive,” “controversial,” or which may make students “feel guilty.” These attacks on the free speech of educators and the education of students have been pushed by groups that oppose teaching students accurate history about the civil rights struggles for racial equality and LGBTQ equality in the United States. Legislation in this area is often framed as being about parental rights, as protecting students from activism by teachers, or as school transparency measures. In fact, these bills censor curricula, ban books, persecute teachers, and undermine the rights of students to further the radical agenda of white Christian nationalist politicians.

This item indicates whether a state has passed a law that prohibits teachers in public schools or colleges from discussing topics defined by the state as divisive or controversial. For example, these bills may restrict discussion of racial oppression throughout American history, gender identity or sexual orientation, women’s issues, or other politicized topics. The language used in the bills is intentionally broad and vague, essentially tying the hands of teachers and administrators by putting them at risk for discipline, fines, or even permanent loss of license. Many of them purport to ban topics such as “Critical Race Theory,” even though the subject is only taught in high-level graduate courses. Others ban any discussion that could potentially cause discomfort in students, such as structural racism or feminism. When passed, these laws have had a dramatically negative impact on school environments, frequently leading to book bans, disciplining and firing of educators, censorship of curriculum, revocation of diversity and inclusive education programs, and stifling of student discussion.

Additionally, some states have laws that prohibit educators from discussing LGBTQ topics in school or mandate that such topics be presented negatively. Prior to 2022, these laws usually applied only to sex education, although they were frequently applied more broadly by school districts. Recently, however, some states have passed even broader prohibitions on discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, often labeled as “don’t say gay laws.” While advocates for these laws contend that they are meant to prevent exposure of students to inappropriate sexual material, in fact they falsely conflate LGBTQ people and topics with sexuality. Unfortunately, these bills stigmatize LGBTQ students, limit their ability to access supportive resources, and have a negative impact on the school environment.

We also indicate states that allow parents to opt students out of any class with which they disagree for religious reasons. Many states have laws that allow students to opt out of sex education classes, and some require explicit parental permission or "opt-in" for these classes. However, this assessment goes beyond sex education to indicate opt-out from classes such as history or biology to which parents have religious objections.

Lastly, we indicate state laws that undermine the rights of young people by providing special protection for “parental rights.” Using a similar framework as Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, these laws subject any infringement on “parental rights,” a broad and poorly defined concept, to strict scrutiny analysis. In other words, whenever government protections conflict with parental beliefs and actions, the government must meet the most challenging legal test. This greatly limits the ability of state agencies to protect young people and enable them to exercise their own rights to safety, education, religious freedom, health care, or free speech. Further, these laws set the stage for future litigation by a fringe minority of religious activists to define “parental rights” in ways that further their agenda, at the expense of young people. While a number of states have relevant court decisions saying that parental rights are “fundamental rights” in limited circumstances, such as child custody disputes, we are not counting these limited decisions for the purpose of this section.

Partner Perspective: The Dangerous State Legislative Agenda of Parental-Rights Extremists

Anti-Trans Youth Laws

View the National Summary Map for this issue.

Several states have considered bills that target trans children, or their parents and medical providers, generally based on religious disapproval of trans identities. Although there is significant variation in these bills, those that have passed into law tend to either seek to prevent trans youth from accessing medical care or to exclude them from school athletics.

Displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of trans youth, these bans prevent them from accessing the standards of necessary medical care that are backed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and other leading health authorities. Some of these bills go so far as to threaten parents with prosecution if they help their child receive the medical care recommended by the child’s doctor. When lawmakers prohibit medical care based on their beliefs, they risk the safety of others and undermine their religious freedom. No one should have authority to put their religious beliefs before the health and well-being of others.

Trans youth, like other students, deserve the opportunity to learn teamwork, sportsmanship, leadership, and self-discipline, and to build a sense of belonging with their peers through school athletics. Unfortunately, some states have passed legislation that prevents trans children from accessing school sports and related programs. These attacks on trans youth are rooted in religious disapproval rather than educational best practices. These bills are not about fairness — the overwhelming majority of trans youth, like most children, don’t play at elite levels. Instead, these laws result in exclusion and isolate trans youth from their classmates.

Anti-Science / Anti-Evolution Laws

This item indicates laws that allow or require public school educators to present non-scientific religious doctrine as scientific fact, most often relating to evolution. For example, these laws may require public schools to teach about “controversies” in areas where religious doctrine conflicts with generally accepted science.

Bible Class Laws

This item indicates laws that require or encourage public schools to offer elective classes on the Christian bible as a historical or literary document. While it may be technically possible for a public school to offer a course on the bible that uses it solely for historical or literary purposes, studies have shown it is very challenging for schools to consistently teach the bible in a non-devotional manner. Instead, many schools that offer such courses purposefully use them to proselytize and engage students in religious activities. Note that the classes authorized by these bills differ significantly from comparative religion classes, which examine many different religious perspectives.

Religious Displays in Schools

This item indicates laws that require schools (and sometimes other public buildings) to post religious displays such as the national motto, “In God We Trust,” or some version of the Ten Commandments from the bible. Some of these laws mandate the size, format, and location (requiring display, for example, in “every classroom” or “a prominent location”) of these displays, while others leave these details to the individual school or district. Some of these laws require that the displays be donated rather than paid for with taxpayer funds. An excellent example of Christian nationalist symbolism, these requirements have nothing to do with education, but rather are meant to inculcate the ahistorical belief that America was founded as a Christian nation and to reinforce the linkage of religious expression with American identity. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Stone v. Graham decision found a Kentucky law that required the display of the Ten Commandments in school classrooms to be unconstitutional.

School Vouchers & Tax Credits

This item indicates whether state law establishes school voucher or tax credit programs. School vouchers divert taxpayer funding from public education to private educational institutions, the majority of which are religious. Many states have laws that either create statewide school voucher or pilot voucher programs. Alternatively, some states have tax credit programs that create a more complex process to achieve the same result. States with these programs give tax credits to individuals who donate to third party scholarship organizations. These organizations then give students vouchers to attend private, usually religious, schools. So, in effect, these programs are subsidized by the state.

School Prayer Laws

This item indicates state laws that allow schools or educators to improperly promote religious activities. For example, this includes laws that allow school staff to participate in religious activities with students on school grounds or facilities during school hours and laws that encourage schools to engage religious leaders to interact with students. Courts have made clear that the First Amendment prohibits school staff from promoting religion or engaging in religious expression with students because this is religiously coercive. Despite recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in this area, schools can and must limit religious expression by teachers when interacting with students as part of their teaching activities.

This assessment also includes laws that promote the exercise of religion by students in ways that are discriminatory toward other students or disruptive to the educational environment. The First Amendment guarantees students the right to engage in religious activities in schools to the same extent students can engage in secular expressive activities. At the same time, schools may set reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on these activities. However, some states have passed laws that grant religious students special privileges or allow religious expression that harasses other students.

Compelled Pledge Law

View the National Summary Map for this issue.

This item indicates whether a state has a law mandating that the Pledge of Allegiance be recited in public schools classrooms with either no opt-out possible for students or an opt-out that requires parental permission. While some states allow students to opt out of the pledge with parental consent, such exemptions are insufficient because students have the constitutional right to freedom of free speech and freedom of religion. In 1943, the US Supreme Court recognized that students may not be compelled to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance in the landmark West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette decision. Accordingly, state laws should recognize the ability of students to exercise these rights.

Released Time Law

Some state laws require or allow school districts to provide “released time” for students to attend private religious education. To meet constitutional requirements defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) and Zorach v. Clausen (1952), this religious instruction must be outside school grounds, the school may not encourage participation, and school resources may not be spent to facilitate this religious education. Unfortunately, these released time programs may compromise the education of both participating and non-participating students if they detract from class time. While most laws establishing released time are permissive, meaning they allow school districts to set their own released time policies, at least one state (Tennessee) has a mandatory released time law that requires schools to allow released time, regardless of school district policy.

School Credit for Religious Education

This item indicates state laws that allow students to receive academic credit for religious education classes taught outside of school grounds and/or school hours. While some of these laws are tied to released time policies, allowing students to acquire credit for released time activities, others allow students to receive academic credit or other types of religious education. Generally, to qualify for credit, these educational activities must meet secular and religiously neutral parameters. There has been some challenge to the constitutionality of these laws, but they have been upheld by at least two federal circuit courts in the Lanner v. Wimmer (10th Circ. 1981) and the Moss v. Spartanburg County School District Seven (4th Circ. 2012) decisions.

Campus License to Discriminate Laws

This item indicates state laws that prevent public colleges and universities from applying nondiscrimination policies to religious student organizations. The majority of public colleges and universities have nondiscrimination policies that allow students to participate in any recognized student organization, and most colleges and universities collect a fee from students that is provided to student organizations in order to support their programming.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that public colleges and universities must treat student organizations equally with respect to recognition and funding—they cannot discriminate based on viewpoint—but they may impose universal requirements such as nondiscrimination policies. These policies are important because they ensure that students are not forced to pay for student organizations in which they are not allowed to participate.

However, some states have Campus License to Discriminate laws that require public colleges and universities to both recognize religious student organizations and to allow them to discriminate by excluding some students based on the organization’s religious beliefs. Religious groups may advocate for these laws so that they can exclude students of other religions, nonreligious students, or other groups they disfavor, such as LGBTQ people.

There have been some legal developments in this area because the Trump Administration released regulations requiring all public colleges and universities to both recognize religious groups and also allow them to discriminate. American Atheists is currently suing the U.S. Department of Education to challenge this discriminatory rule, and the Department has indicated it will rescind or modify the rule.

Religious Daycare Exemption

This item indicates laws that exempt daycares that are operated by a church, ministry, or parochial school from obtaining necessary licenses, paying annual fees, or meeting other legal requirements that apply to secular daycare programs. While some states still require religious daycares to maintain standard health and safety requirements, others do not require any licensure or regulation whatsoever. These exemptions are harmful because the preferences given to religious daycares incentivize those programs and reduce the availability of nonreligious daycare programs, which are required to follow significantly more stringent rules. For example, secular daycares must maintain a license, be subject to inspections, staff training requirements, and required child-staff ratios, which may increase costs compared to the relatively unregulated religious programs. At the same time, the lack of these safeguards in religious daycares can result in abuse, fraud, and neglect.