We have officially passed the one year anniversary of this substack back in January. I cannot express my gratitude and appreciation for the support. I sincerely hope you all have gotten the most out of the daily newsletters. But as I mentioned in past newsletter updates, challenging life circumstances have necessitated that I change course with what this substack produces. The truth is that I found the daily newsletter to be quite time-consuming. So much so, that it has impacted my personal life in negative ways. And as my work life gets busier and my personal life gets more challenging, the substack has become more of a burden than an asset.

I thought long and hard about what to do. For a while, I considered shutting the substack down. It seemed costs outweighed the benefits. But as some users mentioned, perhaps I could move from a daily newsletter to a weekly one. After pondering this, I want to give it a go. Thus starting next Monday, February 15th, 2026, this substack will move to a weekly publishing model instead of daily. My idea is to do the following:

• Every Friday afternoon/evening, I will pubish a “This Week’s News” newsletter modeled after my daily newsletter.

• I will curate the top stories through the week in a similar format to what I have already been doing.

• After a few months, I will reassess the feasibility, practicality, and acceptance of this new weekly newsletter.

I know this is a big change from how I have been doing things. Many of you have so kindly entrusted me to deliver the news that I read to you daily for the past year. I truly hope you will stick around as I test run this change. I hope all of us - including me - will be pleasantly surprised by its success. If further changes are necessary, then we will reassess accordingly.

So, I just want to reiterate, the substack is not going away. Rather, we are moving to a weekly model instead of daily. Beginning next week, you will not get daily emails from me, but one email on Friday. This is the plan going forward.

Please feel free to leave comments or thoughts. Thank you all so much for your support and love. See you next Friday!

— Matt

Leave a comment

As time went on, though, the work slowly took up more of my life than I expected. To keep up with the pace, I often pushed aside time with family, friends, and people I care deeply about. And in true life fashion, this year brought a lot of change — some good, some bad, sometimes all at once.

Recently, I went through a major personal shift that is taking a real toll on my mental health. It is forcing me to step back and think seriously about my priorities, my commitments, and how this Substack fits into my life right now. Spending nearly every evening finding, selecting, curating, and writing the newsletter has meant that I’ve unintentionally neglected things — and people — that matter a lot to me. I’ve realized I just can’t keep doing this at the same pace while also taking care of myself.

So where does that leave things? To be honest, I’m still figuring that out. I’ve thought about everything from shutting this down entirely, to switching to a once-weekly roundup, to trying something different altogether. I don’t have the final answer yet, but I do know that things will need to change in some way.

For now, nothing is changing immediately. I’ll continue publishing on the usual weekday schedule through December 23rd. Then I’ll be taking a break during Christmas and New Years, and I’ll be back by January 12th at the latest with an update and a clearer plan for the future of this Substack.

I know that uncertainty isn’t the best news to hear, and I appreciate your patience as I take some time to rest and reflect. Truly, thank you for being here, for reading, and for trusting me with your time. I don’t take that lightly.

I promise to keep you all in the loop as decisions are made.

And as always, keep reading.

First off, thank you for being here. Marginalia started as a small experiment: a weekday, morning rundown of today’s news in the United States and around the world. As we rapidly approach the end of the year, and the one-year anniversary of Marginalia, it feels like the right moment to take stock of what this newsletter has become, and where it could go next.

Close to a year on, there are now more than 2,300 of you reading along. We are still a small publication, but for something that began as a side project, it’s a lot.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about what’s next. It has been suggested to me that perhaps we turn on the the subscription feature. To make this decision, I need your input. Specifically:

Should Marginalia stay 100% free for the time being, or is it time to introduce paid subscriptions?

I don’t want to put up a paywall for the sake of it. I’d only do it if enough of you think this work is worth supporting directly. A paid tier could help make Marginalia more sustainable, but it only makes sense if it feels right for the community.

So, I’d love to hear from you:

1. Would you consider becoming a paid subscriber to Marginalia?

2. If so, what feels like the right price point? ($5? $10? I’m open to your thoughts)

If you are interested in giving input, fill out the short poll below.

I’ll be transparent about whatever I decide. No matter what, the daily newsletter will stay free for now.

Thanks again for reading, sharing, and supporting Marginalia. You’re the reason this exists at all.

— Matt

It is understandable that many find the burning of the American flag blatantly offensive and disrespectful, especially for those who carried it valiantly into battle. However, the question for a free society is not whether an act is offensive, but whether the government has the power to punish the message it conveys. That is precisely why this new Order is so dangerous. It is a document designed to achieve what decades of Supreme Court precedent has forbidden: using the power of the state to punish citizens for expressing a political message. To understand just how serious this is, we have to look past the visceral reaction to the act itself and instead focus on the principle the Order tries to dismantle, the legal fictions it creates, and the authoritarian vision it ultimately serves.

The Bedrock: Why You Can Burn the Flag

For over thirty years, the law on this issue has been crystal clear: flag burning is protected under the First Amendment. This protection hinges on two landmark Supreme Court cases. The first, Texas v. Johnson (1989), involved a protestor, Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned an American flag outside the Republican National Convention to protest the Reagan administration. He was convicted under a Texas law that forbade desecrating the flag.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down the law. Justice William J. Brennan, writing for the majority, delivered one of the most powerful defenses of free expression in American history. He argued that flag burning, in the context presented before the Court, was not mindless vandalism but “expressive conduct,” a form of symbolic speech intended to convey a political message. He then laid down what he called the “bedrock principle” of the First Amendment:

The dissenters argued that the flag was a unique symbol deserving of special protection. But Brennan countered with this insight: forced reverence means no reverence at all. “We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration,” he wrote, “for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”

A year later, in United States v. Eichman (1990), the Court doubled down, striking down a federal law passed by Congress in a direct attempt to circumvent the Johnson ruling. The principle was thus solidified: the government cannot protect the flag's symbolic value by punishing those who defile it.

Speech & Symbols in the First Amendment:

The SCOTUS precedent rests on a crucial distinction. The First Amendment doesn’t just protect spoken or written words. It protects symbolic speech - actions intended to convey a particular message. A classic example is students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, an act the Supreme Court protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

Of course, every speech act involves some conduct, and the government can regulate the conduct if it serves a purpose unrelated to the message. For example, a city can have a “content-neutral” law against setting fires in a public park for safety reasons. You could be prosecuted under that law regardless of what you were burning. But the laws struck down in Johnson and Eichman were not content-neutral. They were content-based. They specifically criminalized the act of desecrating a flag because the government disagreed with the expression of disrespect it conveyed. That is what the First Amendment forbids and what the Executive Order attempts to do.

The Executive Order, Paragraph-by Paragraph

Trump’s Order is a legal Trojan Horse. Trump knows he cannot ban flag burning outright, so instead he directs the government to punish the act through pretext and intimidation.

Section 1. Purpose

The “Purpose” section reads like a confession. It openly admits to the unconstitutional motive that will be the centerpiece of any legal challenge against it. It describes flag desecration as “uniquely offensive,” a “statement of contempt, hostility, and violence.” This language is a direct repudiation of Justice Brennan’s bedrock principle. The administration is openly admitting that its motive is to suppress an idea it finds “offensive or disagreeable.” This admission is Exhibit A. Any court case challenging the Order will seize on it.

Section 2. Measures to Combat Desecration of the American Flag

This is where the strategy becomes clear. It directs the Attorney General to prosecute “acts of American Flag desecration that violate applicable, content-neutral laws, while causing harm unrelated to expression.”

On its face, this sounds constitutionally sound. The administration’s “official story” will be that it is simply prosecuting legitimate crimes. For instance, if you steal a flag to burn it (violating theft laws) or set a dangerously large fire in a crowded area (violating public safety laws), you can and should be prosecuted. The harm, in these cases, is the theft or the danger, not the political message. If this were all the Order did, it would be redundant, but legal. This is a legal Trojan Horse.

But this instruction is a legal Trojan Horse. Trump’s intent, clear from his statements and the Order itself, is to weaponize ‘content-neutral’ laws and enforce them selectively. A park ordinance against small fires might be ignored when used for a grill or a vigil candle. But if the flame ignites a flag, the same rule becomes the basis for federal referral for local prosecution. The offense isn’t the fire, it’s the message. That is content-based discrimination, and that is what the First Amendment forbids.

This strategy of pretext is coupled with another sinister tool: a provision directing immigration authorities to deny visas, revoke residency, and pursue deportation against non-citizens who desecrate the flag. This is perhaps the most legally potent part of the Order, creating a dangerous system where a right as fundamental as political expression depends on your citizenship status.

But the real endgame is the final paragraph which directs the Attorney General to “pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions.” This is saying the quiet part out loud. The administration is openly declaring its intent to shop for a test case to bring to the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court, hoping it will restrict, or in the best case for the Administration, overturn the decades old Texas v. Johnson precedent.

What Will Our Right-Wing SCOTUS Do?

As I pointed out above, this Order ‘s real rationale is to hand the 6-3 right-wing Supreme Court the opportunity to overturn Texas and thus Eichman. The question becomes that if and when such a case lands before the Court, what will they do? Will they uphold the Texas precedent or curtail the First Amendment? While we can safely assume that the three liberals would vote to uphold Texas, it is not so easy to glean what the conservatives would do as their past actions and statements can be contradictory.

Chief Justice Roberts defended the congressional law at issue in Eichman when he was a government attorney, but recent said that, while he personally dislikes the idea of flag burning, it is a “harmless way” of expressing one’s views and that he agreed with the Texas decision. Justice Amy Coney Barrett clerked for Scalia who famously voted in favor of Johnson in Texas, and thus may share his views on flag burning. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in 2016 that as a young law student he despised Texas v. Johnson, but has since come around to agreeing with Scalia’s reasoning. As for Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas, it is a roll of the dice as to whether they will uphold Texas or, as in a lot of cases, show further erode past precedent to suit a right-wing ideology.

The Moral and Political Rot of the Order

The issues with this Order are not just legal; they are deeply philosophical.

True patriotism is not compelled loyalty. It is a voluntary love of country and, more importantly, its ideals. The highest ideal America stands for is freedom, and that includes the freedom to dissent in ways that may shock and offend. To force respect for the flag is to turn it from a symbol of liberty into a symbol of state-enforced piety.

The flag does not belong to the government or to one political party. It belongs to the people. It represents the sacrifices made for our freedoms, and one of those fundamental freedoms is the right to tell the government you disapprove, even if that message is delivered with a match. To punish the act of flag burning is to argue that the symbol is more important than the freedoms and ideals it represents. It is a profound, Orwellian contradiction.

But make no mistake, this Order is not a good-faith effort to honor a national symbol. It is a calculated and cynical maneuver to achieve a specific political goal: the silencing of dissent. It uses the flag as a shield to attack the very constitutional principles it is supposed to represent. It seeks to redefine patriotism as obedience and free speech as a privilege to be revoked when it becomes uncomfortable for those in power.

The First Amendment was not written to protect polite, popular, or agreeable speech. It was written precisely to protect the speech we find offensive, disagreeable, and even hateful. As conservative Justice Antonin Scalia remarked of flag burning bans, this is precisely “the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.” And just as tyranny is a direct threat to liberty, this Order is a direct challenge to the soul of American liberty. The defense of that soul now falls to the courts, and to the citizens who refuse to let a symbol of freedom be twisted into a tool of oppression.

Trump, TX Republicans Craft Their Plan:

The push for this mid-decade redistricting began with a direct call to action from Trump himself. He has publicly stated that a “very simple redrawing” of Texas’s congressional districts could net Republicans up to five seats, a tantalizing prospect for a party clinging to a very narrow House majority. In response, Governor Greg Abbott has called a special legislative session to take up the issue, giving the plan the full backing of the state’s Republican leadership.

To justify this extraordinary measure, Texas officials are pointing to a recent letter from the Trump administration's Department of Justice (DOJ). The letter alleges that four of the state’s congressional districts, all currently or recently held by Black or Latino Democrats, are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. The DOJ’s argument hinges on the idea that these are “coalition districts,” where multiple minority groups are combined to form a majority, a practice the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently called into question.

However, this legal reasoning is being met with widespread skepticism and accusations of political opportunism. Critics are quick to point out a glaring contradiction: in a recent federal trial over the current maps, the state’s own lawyers vehemently argued that the districts were drawn using a “race-blind” process. So despite saying in Court that their districts were designed via a race-blind process, the Texas GOP is now seemingly embracing the DOJ’s concocted allegation of illegality as a convenient pretext for a partisan power grab.

Democrats, Out of Power, Plot Their Next Moves:

Faced with this aggressive move, Texas Democrats are scrambling to formulate a response. With Republicans in firm control of the state legislature, their options are limited. One potential strategy is to flee the state to break quorum and prevent a vote, a tactic they have employed in the past. Another potential avenue of recourse is the courts. Any new map is almost certain to be met with immediate legal challenges, continuing Texas's long and troubled history of its political maps being found in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Democrats are also hopeful that, if passed and upheld in the Courts, this latest GOP gerrymander will turn out to be “dummymander.” A dummymander is a scenario where Republicans, in their zeal to create new GOP-friendly districts, spread their voters too thin, inadvertently making some of their own seats more competitive in the long run.

But the options for countering these gerrymanders are limited. So Democrats must get creative and use the GOP’s own tactics against them.

Dems Must Fight Fire with Fire:

On a recent podcast, California Governor Gavin Newsom strongly critiqued the GOP’s plan, and was clear that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. If Texas can gerrymander their districts, so can California. While this is the type of energy all blue state governors and state officials should be displaying, California is a tough case to accomplish this. California redistricts via an independent commission, established via a constitutional ballot. Thus to get past this, Democrats will need to put something on the ballot for redistricting via a special election.

But Democrats could be bolder. We could use the text of the California Constitution to our advantage. Nothing in the State Constitution prohibits mid-decade redistricting. In its silence, the Constitution may give consent for Democrats in the State House to do a mid-decade redistricting while maintaining the independent commissions authors over decennial redistricting. Bolstering this argument, the State Constitution does prohibit cities and counties from doing mid-decade redistricting, but not congressional lines.

This is a risky gambit. The Courts could shoot this down. Voters could reject a proposed ballot measure. Democrats could do what Democrats do best - whine and complain, decry the downfall of democracy, and then, in playing by the rules, hasten democracy’s fall. But the point is that Democrats must try something! We cannot continue to play by the rules when our opponents haven’t played the same game for decades. Even if Newsom is pandering for his eventual run for president in 2028, other blue states should think about, threaten, or attempt such a plan too. This is an all hands on deck moment. Democrats need to play hardball. Democrats cannot continue to decry what Republicans do, and then do nothing in return. Every time such inaction is taken, we lose. Voters like action. Democrats want action. Now is the time to act.

Every Fourth of July, I feel a pang of something I can only describe as patriotic dissonance. The festivities and symbols of the holiday - hot dogs on the grill, the popping of fireworks, an ocean of red, white, and blue - all make me feel like a birthday party I was invited to, but I no longer recognize the guest of honor.

The flags get bigger and bigger each year. They are flying from the backs of bumpersticker-adorned trucks like battle standards. I hear the chants of “USA! USA!” But these performances are not expressions of shared national pride; rather they are partisan rallying cries — symbols of the right-wing takeover of what it means to be patriotic.

This feeling of national alienation isn’t an accident; it’s the intended result of a successful political project. For too long, the American left, wary of jingoism, chauvinism, and rightly critical of our nation’s sins, has quietly recused itself from the celebration of our founding. We have ceded the symbols, the language, and the very idea of patriotism to the right and those who would make it malignant.

The Right’s Co-opting of Patriotism:

But let’s get one thing straight. The chest-thumping, “love it or leave it” fervor of the modern American right is not patriotism. It is its opposite. It is a counterfeit faith, a creed built on fear and division that we must name for what it is: nationalism.

We are not talking about a benign pride of place. We are talking about a specific political poison: a philosophy of national superiority and dominance, a form of ethno-religious chauvinism that sees America not as a continuing project, but as a fixed possession. A possession to be defended from the other, and, crucially, to be purified of “invaders” who don’t fit a mythologized mold.

This pseudopatriotism creates a blind attachment to national cultural values, uncritical conformity with the prevailing ways of the in-group, and rejection of other nations and peoples as out-groups. It is an ideology that teaches you to stop thinking and start saluting, replacing a faithful love of country and with a fear of the other.

The tools of this pseudopatriotic nationalism are simple. It elevates symbolic patriotism - pride in the flag pin - above patriotism of principle. It demands a blind, uncritical patriotism, where adherents are unwilling to both criticize and accept criticism of the nation. America, in this re-telling, is the flawless shining city on a hill for all to emulate and adulate. To point out its imperfections is blasphemy and heresy.

The Left Must Reclaim Patriotism From the Right:

We reject this. We offer a better way. Our patriotism places America not on a pedestal, but in the proving grounds.

This requires drawing a hard line. The nationalist pledges allegiance to a tribe, to a mythic spiritual and cultural unity, and expresses an exclusive attachment that necessitates enemies. But the patriot pledges allegiance to an idea — the radical premise of a republic dedicated to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness and governed of the people, by the people, for the people. The patriot feels a charitable and generous love for the millions of strangers who are co-authors in this experiment.

The patriot asks: How can we be more free?
The nationalist asks: How can you prove you are one of us?

The patriot says: Let’s expand the franchise.
The nationalist says: Let’s audit the vote.

The patriot says: Let’s confront our history to build a better future.
The nationalist says: Let’s forget the history that make us uncomfortable.

This is the fight over the nature of our national identity. Is that internalized sense of belonging a guarded fortress only for those born on this soil, with the correct race, religion, and creed? Or is it a vast frontier, something you opt into through a shared commitment to liberty, freedom, and justice for all?

The left must be the champion of the frontier. America is not a finished, exclusive, and fearful possession, but an ongoing, inclusive, and hopeful project. We must embody a constructive patriotism, with no hint of a weak or timid affection, but a fierce and critical loyalty. We are critical because we love this country. We are loyal not to any government or person, but to the promise of our founding creed. Our questioning and criticism are not acts of disdain, but the highest expressions of a desire for positive change — the continuation of the unfinished American project.

What Patriotism Means to Me:

This is the patriotism of Frederick Douglass, who on July 5th, 1852, asked, “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?” This critique was not an abandonment of America; it was a demand that America live up to its own rhetoric. Douglass saw the the chasm between America’s founding principles and its original sin - slavery. His critique was the ultimate act of constructive love, urging his listeners to see the U.S. Constitution not as a pro-slavery document, but as a “glorious liberty document.”

This is the patriotism of the Civil Rights marchers, the suffragettes, and the labor organizers who loved this country so much to force it to be better. They understood that loving a country is like loving a person: you do it not by ignoring their flaws and pretending none exist, but by having the courage to help them face and conquer them.

So this July 4th, I choose to no longer be a stranger at my country’s birthday party. I choose to declare my independence from the nationalism the right disguises as patriotism. I choose to claim the flag not as a symbol of unthinking allegiance, but as the standard of a republic I am still fighting to perfect. I choose to claim patriotism as the engine of our collective progress.

I love this country. I love it enough to tell the truth about it. I love it enough to fight for it. This is the only patriotism that has ever moved America forward. It is the only patriotism worth having. I hope you too will join me in reclaiming patriotism back from those who would otherwise distorted and twist it.

Happy 4th of July!

Texas has recently moved to enact Senate Bill 10, a measure requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. This move, mirroring similar legislation and court cases in states like Louisiana, thrusts an old question back into the spotlight: what is the place of religion, its practices, and sacred texts in state-mandated public education? While proponents frame these displays as historically and morally foundational, they have a hurdle to overcome: the Establishment Clause found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Though the Supreme Court has ruled on these questions, Texas, and by extension other conservative states such as Louisiana, hope that given the current right-wing makeup of the Supreme Court, and the Court’s clear disdain for precedent, will mean a win for the right-wing Christian evangelical right.

The Shifting Sands of Precedent

The Supreme Court has already directly addressed mandatory Ten Commandments displays in public schools. In Stone v. Graham (1980), the Court struck down a Kentucky law remarkably similar to Texas’s SB 10, finding in Stone that the “pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature” and that such posting “serves no such educational function” when not integrated into the curriculum. The Court in Stone applied a three-pronged test it established in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1970), which determined if a statute violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The test required that a law, to pass constitutional muster via Establishment Clause, must have a secular purpose, a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and avoid excessive government entanglement with religion.

However, the legal landscape has evolved greatly since 1970. Proponents of the Texas law, like Rep. Candy Noble who sponsored the bill, point to the Supreme Court case Van Orden v. Perry (2005), which upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds. But this comparison is fraught. The Van Orden plurality and Justice Breyer’s crucial concurring opinion specifically distinguished the public school context, where “government must exercise particular care in separating church and state,” from the capitol grounds setting. The Van Orden Court itself affirmed Stone’s holding regarding classrooms as “improper and [had a] plainly religious purpose.”

The most significant shift comes from Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), where the Supreme Court officially abandoned the Lemon test, stating that Establishment Clause interpretations must instead be guided by “historical practices and understandings.” This new, less defined “history and tradition” test is what Texas SB 10 will likely be judged against, creating considerable uncertainty and perhaps even the Court outright modifying or overturning Stone and Van Orden.

Constitutional Hurdles for SB 10:

While the Supreme Court’s recent shift in Establishment Clause jurisprudence with Kennedy v. Bremerton has altered the analytical framework, Texas’s SB 10 still confronts a series of significant constitutional challenges. These hurdles stem from the inherently religious nature of the Ten Commandments, the questionable historical claims underpinning their mandatory display in schools, and the unique, sensitive environment of public education. An examination of these specific issues reveals why the law remains on constitutionally precarious ground.

1. Inherently Religious, Not Primarily Secular:
   Despite claims of secular moral or historical purpose, the Ten Commandments are, at their core, a sacred religious text. As the Court noted in Stone, the first part of the Commandments concerns “the religious duties of believers.” Forcing their display in every classroom, as with the Louisiana law, moves beyond mere acknowledgement and into state promotion of religious content. To quote Stone, if the display is “to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments.” This is hardly a neutral, secular objective for public education.

2. The “Source of Law” Argument: A Historical Misconception
   A common justification for these displays, echoed by proponents of SB 10, is that the Ten Commandments are a foundational source of American law. However, legal historians and scholars such as Peter Irons, Marci Hamilton, Paul Finkelman, and Steven K. Green, compellingly argue this is largely a myth. While some commandments (e.g., against murder or theft) align with secular laws, these prohibitions are universal and predate biblical texts, having roots in ancient codes like Hammurabi’s. More importantly, legal historian Peter Irons notes, “There is not one mention of the Ten Commandments, or of the Bible, anywhere in James Madison’s almost verbatim notes of the [Constitutional] convention’s debates.” The explicit link to the Constitution's framing is tenuous at best.

3. Sectarian Preference:
   The Texas law mandates the King James Bible version of the Ten Commandments. In the Louisiana case, which Texas bases the law on, Professor Steven Green’s expert testimony notes that this version is distinctly Protestant and differs from Jewish and Catholic traditions in numbering and emphasis. Mandating a specific denominational version, even one already on a state monument, raises serious concerns about the state preferring one religious viewpoint over others within the classroom. This is precisely what the Establishment Clause aims to prevent.

4. The Unique Public School Context:
   The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that public schools are not just any public space. They house a “captive audience” of impressionable children, and the Court has maintained “particular vigilance in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools” (Van Orden, 2005). Even a passive display, when mandated by the state in every classroom, every day, can create a coercive environment for students of minority faiths or no faith at all. It signals state endorsement of a particular religious code, making those who do not adhere feel like “outsiders.”

5. “History and Tradition” – A Narrow or Broad Brush?
   While proponents will argue a general “history and tradition” of religious acknowledgement in American life, opponents contend there’s “no evidence... of a wide and longstanding practice of permanent display of any version of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.” The “history and tradition” test, if applied with specificity to the classroom context, may not support SB 10. The mere presence of the Ten Commandments in some historical textbooks, as Louisiana’s law argues, is different from a state-mandated, permanent wall display intended for daily viewing.

A Step Towards Exclusion:

Beyond the strictly legal arguments, laws like Texas’s SB 10 risk fostering an environment of exclusion. As Texas State Rep. Vincent Perez argued, “Posting religious texts without context doesn’t teach history... It risks promoting one religion over others, something our Constitution forbids.” Rep. James Talarico, who is in seminary school, even suggested such measures could backfire, creating “a generation of atheists rather than one of Christians,” and that “the separation of church and state doesn’t just protect the state. It also protects the church.”

The abrogation of the Lemon test has undoubtedly opened the door for legislation like SB 10. However, fundamental Establishment Clause principles - preventing government endorsement of religion, protecting religious minorities, and ensuring a secular character for public education - remain critical. Texas’s law, much like Louisiana’s, appears to be on a collision course with these principles, regardless of the specific “test” the Supreme Court ultimately refines or uses. The concern isn’t merely about a poster on a wall; it’s about the message the state sends to its diverse student population regarding religious neutrality and inclusivity in public education. Moreover, it represents the increasingly right-wing shift on Establishment Clause jurisprudence and the rise of a more aggressive Christian right trying to change the fabric of our constitutional republic by mandating their religious ideology infect our public life.

Share

Leave a comment

It's June, and with it comes Pride Month – a time of celebration, remembrance, and visibility for LGBTQ+ communities. And as reliably as summer follows spring, it also brings a chorus of condemnation from religious corners, often brandishing the usual "clobber" verses to decry pride as a damnable sin. But when we take a closer look at what the Bible actually says, and what pride truly means in these different contexts, this condemnation collapses under scrutiny.

The central sleight-of-hand in these critiques is a deliberate conflation. There's the pride that biblical texts often warn against, and then there's the Pride of Pride Month. These are not the same thing.

Word Games:

The word "pride" multiple distinct meanings. There's the pride characterized by an "excessively high opinion of one's own worth or importance, which gives rise to a feeling or attitude of superiority over others; inordinate self-esteem." This is the stuff of arrogance and haughtiness, in the sense that "I'm better than you." Then there's pride described as "a sense of confidence, self-respect and solidarity as felt or publicly expressed by members of a group, typically one that has been socially marginalized on the basis of their shared identity, history and experience." This is the "I'm not worse or better than you" pride.

Critics conveniently ignore this distinction. They weaponize the former to attack the latter. Even the ancient Hebrew word often translated as "pride," גָּאוֹן (gaon), showcases this complexity. While it can denote the negative idea of "haughtiness," as in Proverbs, it can also describe the positive "eminence" or "majesty," even for God, as in Isaiah 2:10 (NRSVue):

בּוֹא בַצּוּר, וְהִטָּמֵן בֶּעָפָר, מִפְּנֵי פַּחַד יְהוָה, וּמֵהֲדַר גְּאֹנוֹ.
Enter into the rock, and hide in the dust from the terror of the Lord and from the glory of his majesty.

Context, as always, is king.

What Kind of "Pride" Does the Bible Actually Condemn?

When biblical texts condemn pride, they are almost universally targeting that first, negative sense. Think of Proverbs 16:18 (NRSVue):

Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

This isn't about healthy self-esteem or communal dignity; it's about the arrogance that leads to downfall, often the arrogance of the powerful who oppress the vulnerable. It's the antithesis of humility, as James 4:6 (NRSVue) states:

...God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

Or Romans 12:16 (NRSVue):

Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are.

This biblical "sin of pride" is about looking down on others, about exploiting power, about a self-aggrandizement that denies the worth of others and forgets one's own accountability. This bears absolutely no resemblance to a marginalized community celebrating their survival, affirming their dignity, and demanding equal respect in a world that has historically tried to crush them. If anything, LGBTQ+ Pride is an act of profound humility in the face of systemic arrogance.

Deconstructing the Cobbler Verses:

No discussion of biblical condemnations would be complete without tackling the clobber passages used against LGBTQ+ people.

Let's start with Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). The popular reading is that these cities were destroyed for homosexuality. A critical approach reveals something quite different. Reading the text critically and within its context, we discover the following:

• The "outcry" against Sodom reached God before the angels ever arrived (Genesis 18:20-21)

• The subsequent attempted assault on the angelic visitors wasn't about same-sex desire; it was a horrifying display of intended gang rape, a violent assertion of power and a gross violation of ancient hospitality codes – a theme echoed starkly in Judges 19. Notably, no homosexual acts even occur in the Genesis 19 narrative.

• The sin of Sodom, as later summarized by the prophet Ezekiel, was indeed "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49), followed by "abominable things"—a broad term that certainly includes the violent inhospitality shown to the visitors.

Then there's Leviticus18:22:

• These laws are embedded in the "Holiness Code" (Leviticus 17-26), a section deeply concerned with ritual purity, ethnic boundary marking for ancient Israel, and preventing the land itself from becoming polluted and "vomiting out" its inhabitants. This is a far cry from a universal, timeless condemnation of loving, consensual relationships between people of the same sex.

• The term "homosexuality" as a category of personhood or orientation is an anachronism when applied to these texts. The prohibitions likely targeted specific cultic practices, acts associated with foreign nations, or perhaps, as some scholars suggest, non-consensual acts or those that disrupted patriarchal power structures.

• Furthermore, these purity laws were explicitly tied to the people of Israel and the specific land they inhabited. To universalize them without regard to this context is a profound misreading.

Paul, "Nature," and Selective Outrage:

Moving to the New Testament, Paul's words in Romans 1 are often cited. But Paul’s arguments are rooted in his own cultural and theological framework, including assumptions about Gentile behavior and what constituted "natural" versus "unnatural." These concepts were heavily shaped by Greco-Roman societal norms of his time, not by modern understandings of human sexuality or biology. His overarching sexual ethic, which favored celibacy for all due to a belief in the imminent end of the world, is conveniently ignored by those who selectively quote him on same-sex behavior.

This selectivity is key. Those who use the Bible as a bludgeon against LGBTQ+ people are remarkably inconsistent. They readily dismiss or reinterpret biblical passages that endorse slavery, command genocide, subjugate women, or prescribe death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Yet, a handful of verses, ripped from their historical and literary contexts, are treated as immutable, eternal truths when it comes to condemning LGBTQ+ lives. This isn't faithful interpretation; it's prejudice seeking justification.

The Real Pride Problem:

LGBTQ+ Pride, the kind celebrated this month, is about affirming inherent worth, demanding justice, and finding strength in community. It's a defiant declaration of existence and a celebration of love in a world that too often offers hate. This is not the pride the Bible warns against.

Perhaps the real sinful pride lies with those who, from positions of unexamined privilege and power, presume to know the mind of God so perfectly that they can condemn entire groups of people, distort sacred texts to fit their biases, and celebrate the imagined eternal torment of those they deem unworthy. That, it seems, is a far more dangerous and biblically problematic form of pride than any rainbow flag could ever represent.

Share

Leave a comment

This was supposed to be a victory lap.

Speaker Mike Johnson and House Republicans teed up what Trump has called the “Big, Beautiful Bill” - a large reconciliation package meant to codify Trump’s sprawling economic vision. Instead, the GOP got something else entirely: a week-long demolition derby of intra-party dysfunction resulting in a migraine-sized headache for those wishing to pass Trump’s far-right priorities.

So what exactly happened this week? Let’s go through it.

Sunday Drop: Gut Medicaid, Save “Money”

The week kicked off with a Sunday drop from the Energy & Commerce Committee. Their proposal? Slash over $900 billion from Medicaid under the guise of fiscal responsibility. Among the highlights: new work requirements (delayed until after Trump’s term in 2029 - how convenient), tighter eligibility rules, and changes to how states fund the program.

The Congressional Budget Office weighed in quickly: these changes would result in at least 8.6 million people losing health coverage. Add in a possible expiration of the ACA tax credits and other “market reforms” not related to the reconciliation bill, and that figure could surge to 13.7 million. Even the GOP’s own partial estimate from the CBO reported that 10.3 million people could lose Medicaid coverage by 2034 and 7.6 million people could go uninsured. The these millions of people who could lose coverage, the GOP calls this “efficiency” and “waster, fraud, and abuse.”

Monday’s Reveal: A Love Letter to a Trickle-Down Fantasy

By Monday, the full bill dropped—1,000+ pages of trickle-down nostalgia. At its heart is $4 to $5 trillion in tax cuts, largely aimed at corporations and the wealthy. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget pings the cost at $3.8 trillion as written, and $5.3 trillion if made permanent; the Tax Foundation offers similar numbers.)

Among the bill’s features include:

• Permanent extensions of the 2017 Trump tax cuts.

• Temporary tax breaks for aspects of working-class jobs like tips and overtime, all conveniently expiring in 2028.

• “MAGA Accounts” for newborns.

• A $4 trillion debt ceiling hike.

What’s missing? Any meaningful reform for the ultra-wealthy. No closing of the carried interest loophole. No serious offsets. The bill delivers generously to donors and the wealthy.

SNAP Cuts & SALT Republicans Push Back:

Tuesday and Wednesday were an endurance test. Ways & Means rammed through the tax cuts after a 17-hour session. Energy & Commerce pushed its Medicaid cuts after 26 hours, during which protestors in wheelchairs were arrested. The Agriculture Committee signed off on a $290 billion cut to SNAP benefits.

Meanwhile, a separate battle flared over the SALT deduction cap. Blue-state Republicans pushed for a higher cap than the proposed $30,000. Then a group of SALT Republicans publicly started pushing for the cap to hit $62,000 for individuals and double for joint filers. But many conservatives oppose lifting the existing cap. thus we come at an impasse that Speaker Johnson has, as of yet, failed to overcome.

Senate Smirks, House Stalls:

While House Republicans initially projected an air of confidence in the bill’s provisions and ultimate passage, their Senate colleagues started throwing shade.

Ron Johnson dismissed the bill as a “sad joke.” Rand Paul called the spending cuts “wimpy.” Josh Hawley - channeling a sudden care for the working-class and poor - rejected the Medicaid provisions outright.

The message was clear: this bill isn’t making it through the Senate as-is. With every Democrat being against the bill and those three Republicans being hypothetically opposed based on their statements - not even adding likely no votes from more “moderate” Republicans Like Collins and Murkowski, House Republicans will have to realize - one way or another - that they are taking politically dangerous votes for a bill likely headed to the Senate shredder.

Friday Blow: The Freedom Caucus Pulls the Plug

On Friday came the implosion.

In the House Budget Committee, four members of the Freedom Caucus, including Chip Roy and Ralph Norman, torpedoed the bill, saying it wasn’t extreme enough. For them, there were not enough cuts, not enough speed, not enough destruction of the Inflation Reduction Act.

By Friday night, the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” had hit one big, ugly wall.

What Now?

After the devastating loss for Mike Johnson in Budget, the Committee plans to reconvene on Sunday night at 10 p.m. to try to advance the reconciliation bill. They want to get the bill out of Budget and to the House Rules Committee by Wednesday. That would allow GOP leaders to begin a floor vote sometime next week.

This point is important as next week is the House’s last week in session before the Memorial Day recess. Johnson says he wants this bill through the House prior to Memorial Day. That may not happen.

Remember that any changes made to appease the hard-line Republicans in the budget Committee will more than likely come as an anathema to the larger GOP conference. The concessions these hard-liners are asking for are poisoned pills for purple district House members. And this isn’t even discussing the SALT cap impasse.

Oh and of course the Senate may reject this whole thing.

This Is Bigger Than Just GOP Infighting:

This isn’t just a breakdown in House leadership. It’s a window into the soul of the modern Republican Party: one that prioritizes constant allegiance to Donald Trump and providing special breaks to their donor-class over actual solutions for working-class people.

Whether they can piece this mess back together - or if it collapses under its own dysfunction - remains to be seen.

But one thing’s clear: if this is to be the flagship legislative success for Trump and Republicans heading into 2026 and 2028, it says a lot about where the GOP’s priorities lie. And it says even more about who they are willing to left behind.

This fight isn’t over. Stay updated, stay activated, and when the time comes, VOTE!