In-Sight Publishing<p><strong>Secular Coalition Warns of Christian Nationalist Bias in U.S. Religious Liberty Commission</strong></p><p><strong>Author(s):</strong> <a href="https://in-sightjournal.com/in-sight-people/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Scott Douglas Jacobsen</a></p><p><strong>Publication (Outlet/Website):</strong> The Good Men Project</p><p><strong>Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd):</strong> 2025/08/07</p><p><strong>Nnenna Onwukwe</strong> (They/Them) is the Federal Policy Associate at the Secular Coalition for America, where she advocates for church-state separation, secular inclusion in policy, and protections for religious freedom for all. Onwukwe discusses the Religious Liberty Commission, criticizing its predominantly Christian nationalist composition and lack of secular or interfaith representation. They warn the Commission may use “religious freedom” as a tool for legalizing discrimination, especially against LGBTQ and non-Christian communities. Onwukwe also highlights concerns about IRS policy shifts, political endorsements from the pulpit, and school voucher programs redirecting public funds to private, religious institutions, which threaten public education and constitutional neutrality. SCA has sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury regarding the IRS’s decision not to enforce the Johnson Amendment. You can read the full document on their website: <a href="https://secular.org/2025/07/sca-lets-it-be-known-the-johnson-amendment-must-be-enforced" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://secular.org/2025/07/sca-lets-it-be-known-the-johnson-amendment-must-be-enforced</a></p><p><strong>Scott Douglas Jacobsen:</strong> So, what is the Religious Liberty Commission? Moreover, how have they responded to concerns about bias toward one faith over another?</p><p><strong>Nnenna Onwukwe:</strong> The Religious Liberty Commission was established by President Trump via executive order on May 1, 2025, as part of his broader agenda to promote religious expression in public life. It is housed in the Department of Justice and overseen by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships and the Domestic Policy Council.</p><p>It is chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, with Dr. Ben Carson as vice chair. The Commission’s term runs <strong>through July 4, 2026</strong>, coinciding with the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.</p><p>The Commission’s goals include producing a report on the history and current state of religious liberty in America, identifying threats, and recommending policies, particularly regarding parental rights in religious education, conscience protections, vaccine exemptions, and the use of religious symbols in public spaces.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> So, where does SCA come in?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> We are with the Secular Coalition for America. Our concern is whether the Commission is showing bias toward Christian perspectives. The panel is predominantly composed of conservative evangelical Christians, along with a few Catholics and one Orthodox Jewish representative. There is no real representation of secular individuals, Muslims, Hindus, or other minority faiths.</p><p>Before their first public meeting in June, held at the Museum of the Bible, we sent a letter requesting clarity. We wanted to know whether the Commission’s reports would primarily focus on Christians or encompass all faiths, including nonreligious Americans. We also raised concerns about possible discrimination against non-Christian groups.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> Did they respond?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> No, we have not received a reply. Given the composition of the panel and the rhetoric at their first meeting, they may not be interested in secular input. However, we will keep advocating. They must know we are here and that we are watching.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> What are some of your specific concerns with how they are operating?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> So we sent them a couple of questions. We were particularly concerned because, even in the first meeting, there was much rhetoric about America being a “Christian nation.” However, if you examine the actual history of the United States, the founding documents intentionally omitted references to religion.</p><p>The founders deliberately moved away from a system that fused religion with government. They envisioned a secular nation with a clear separation of church and state. Hearing language that implies otherwise is troubling.</p><p>The composition of the Commission is also a concern, as it lacks secular voices on the panel. During and even before the first meeting, we observed a strong focus on what is often referred to as “anti-Christian bias,” particularly with the establishment of the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.</p><p>The issue is, organizations like ours—and others—have not seen compelling evidence of systemic anti-Christian bias. We worry that the phrase “anti-Christian bias” is being used to justify policies that would allow Christians to discriminate against others, especially in workplaces or service settings.</p><p>For example, if a Christian employee claims their religious beliefs are being “discriminated against,” that might be used to excuse discriminatory behaviour toward LGBTQ individuals or people of other faiths. So the implications could be profound.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> Who comprises the Liberty Commission? That is important to know.</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> The Commission includes Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Dr. Ben Carson, and Paula White, who serves as a senior adviser in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships. Interestingly, Dr. Phil McGraw is also on the panel, though his inclusion has raised some eyebrows.</p><p>The panel consists of Christian leaders, many of whom are affiliated with the Christian nationalist movement. It was strange. Even during the Commission meeting, Dr. Phil spoke out against one of the issues being discussed, which was interesting. Dr. Phil may be the one person on the panel who speaks up. I do not know.</p><p>The panel is primarily composed of Christians, many of whom are recognizable figures in the Christian nationalist movement. I believe one of them was a former Miss America contestant who publicly stated that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.</p><p>That kind of viewpoint reflects the broader makeup of the Commission. Paula White—the head of the White House Faith Office—has been actively pushing the narrative of “anti-Christian bias” and helped establish the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.</p><p>She was a frequent spiritual adviser during Trump’s presidency and was present when both the Religious Liberty Commission and the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force were launched, often leading prayers at those events.</p><p>Interestingly, she has also claimed that women should not hold positions of power, despite holding one herself. That contradiction is, of course, hard to ignore. Overall, it is a panel dominated by prominent Christian nationalist voices who support the idea that America is inherently a Christian nation.</p><p>Even the Jewish panellists did not speak up when those kinds of statements were made, which we found concerning, mainly because those statements are not factual.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen: </strong>What about their makeup?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> The majority of the makeup of the commission are Protestant and conservative Catholics. There are a few rabbis and other Jewish members and at least one person who is Muslim. During their first meeting there was only one Jewish person sitting on the panel, the rest of the panelists were Christian or Catholic.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> Are there any secular voices on the Commission or involved in any way?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> None that we saw. None that are openly secular, at least. Most of the individuals involved are prominent figures in Christian media or associated with the Christian nationalist movement, unfortunately. That is a significant concern for us.</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> We even provided them with names—people who could represent secular Americans and offer a valuable perspective—but nothing has come of it so far.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> Another important point—while not necessarily from a secular perspective alone, it is still concerning: How diverse is the Commission in terms of religious representation? Because it is not just secular voices being excluded; it is also about whether they include a broad interfaith representation. </p><p>Do they reflect the growing diversity in American religious identity? They ignore the expanding secular population, but are they at least capturing denominational or interfaith diversity?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> The majority are Christians, as I mentioned earlier. There are a few Jewish voices, and I believe there may be one or two Muslim individuals involved. However, it is unclear whether they are formally part of the panel or just a participant in the broader conversation.</p><p>However, aside from that, the overwhelming majority of the Commission members are Christian. So, in terms of true interfaith diversity, it is minimal. As you said, there is a growing secular movement—an increasing number of Americans now identify as nonreligious.</p><p>We have been advocating for secular representation in Congress and other federal bodies for years. It is deeply concerning that this Commission was created without any meaningful representation of nonreligious Americans.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> So, in a sense, this version of “religious liberty” seems like a highly selective interpretation of freedom of religion and conscience?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> We often see this with groups like this one and others that promote Christian nationalism.</p><p>They often claim they are fighting for “religious freedom” or “religious liberty,” and that they are being discriminated against, when in reality, what they are pushing for is the freedom to use their religion to discriminate against others or insert their religious beliefs into public institutions, like schools.</p><p>The Commission reflects this mindset. They interpret the First Amendment not as a protection <em>from</em> religious imposition, but as a license to impose their spiritual values on public life under the guise of protecting religious freedom.</p><p>So yes, that is our concern. They have taken a highly selective interpretation of religious liberty—one that favours a particular brand of Christianity—and are using it to advance a very narrow cultural and political agenda.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> They are using that interpretation to justify discrimination.</p><p><strong>Onwukwe: </strong>And that is one of our biggest concerns: that the Commission will use this distorted view of religious freedom to target minority groups, framing it as though Christians are being discriminated against, when in fact, they are the ones seeking legal cover to discriminate.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen: </strong>And this is not new. I remember hearing similar arguments as far back as seven years ago. It would usually come in the form of a brief controversy, such as a 15-minute segment on Fox News, when something happens at a school or church.</p><p>When I was interviewing two people from The Satanic Temple several years ago, they mentioned a persistent persecution complex. They have framed it in a way that if they do not get 100% of what they want, they see it as oppression. They push this narrative. So when they do not get everything exactly as they want it, they claim they are being persecuted.</p><p>How they frame this “victimization” is revealing. Some isolated concerns might be valid, but overall, they are using the idea of victimhood as a political tool.</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> Yes. Moreover, as we have discussed, the secular community is growing. Younger generations, especially, have different views on social and moral issues—things the older, more religious generations often find threatening or uncomfortable. That discomfort is sometimes interpreted as discrimination by those older groups.</p><p>The rise of LGBTQ rights—such as marriage equality, trans rights, and protections for people of other religions or no religion—is often perceived by some conservative Christian groups as an attack on their faith.</p><p>They see it as a threat to the version of America they grew up with, even though the United States has always been a secular nation. It is unfamiliar to them, and they interpret these changes as direct attacks on their beliefs.</p><p>This perception extends to issues such as vaccine mandates and mask requirements. In 2020, we witnessed widespread outrage over church closures, despite <em>all</em> public gathering places being closed due to health concerns.</p><p>Still, they felt singled out because of their religion, even though the policies were broad and applied to everyone equally. What we are discussing is ensuring that all Americans—regardless of their religion or identity—have equal rights and freedoms.</p><p>However, for some, equality feels like persecution because it challenges the privileged position they have long held. You can also see it in schools. Many Christian organizations have been advocating for initiatives such as mandatory prayer in public schools.</p><p>Moreover, with the recent Supreme Court decision—Mahmood v. Taylor—there has been a push to allow parents to opt their children out of public education that conflicts with their religious views.</p><p>So when they claim they are being “discriminated against,” it often really means they want their religious beliefs to take precedence over others’ rights. That is something we see a lot in the Christian nationalist movement and among many far-right Christian groups.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> So, the IRS has weighed in on political endorsements from the pulpit. That is the way it is being framed, although the specifics, outside of press releases, are essential to examine. There are questions about what exactly constitutes a political endorsement—financial or otherwise—and how that interacts with the Johnson Amendment, or whether this is an attempt to override or circumvent it. I am not yet aware of the implications.</p><p><strong>Onwukwe: </strong>So basically, over the years—as you have probably seen—a lot of Americans have filed complaints with the IRS, objecting to religious institutions and leaders openly endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. That is a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.</p><p>Despite this, the IRS has taken minimal action. We, along with other secular organizations, have issued alerts and encouraged the public to submit formal objections to the IRS. However, the agency has not responded decisively or pursued many of these cases.</p><p>With the recent developments, the IRS is now taking the stance that religious institutions <em>can endorse</em> political candidates from the pulpit, essentially making it clear there will be no consequences. That is deeply concerning.</p><p>It opens the door for politicians to funnel untaxed money through churches in exchange for endorsements. You will start seeing political ads or candidate promotions coming directly from megachurches on TV or in services. Since these ads occur within religious institutions, the funds and activities associated with them will not be taxed.</p><p>This poses a serious threat to the separation of church and state. We expect this will have significant adverse effects on future elections, undermining fair democratic processes and increasing the influence of religious institutions in partisan politics.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen: </strong>Are there any limits on the amount?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> On how much someone can donate to a church for political purposes? No, there are no clear limits. So, someone could donate any amount they want to a church to promote a candidate. Moreover, that messaging will end up on people’s TVs, in their social feeds, or even from the pulpit itself.</p><p>There is also ambiguity around whether religious institutions can now endorse candidates on social media or through other channels. That is something we are still watching closely. Since this just happened, we will have to see how far it goes. A lot is still unclear at this point.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> When was the last time the United States was in a situation like this? Was there anything before the Johnson Amendment that served a similar purpose? Or has it always really just been the Johnson Amendment?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> That is a good question. I do not know. I am aware that the Johnson Amendment was introduced to prevent churches and other tax-exempt institutions from endorsing political candidates.</p><p>However, it was created in response to a specific incident, or was it a more preventative measure, intended to ensure that political activity remained separate from tax-exempt religious institutions?</p><p><strong>Jacobsen: </strong>Does this change anything regarding verbal endorsements, written endorsements, or other forms of promotion from churches or politicians?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe: </strong>That is another good question. We are still not sure. In this particular case, the IRS was responding to a specific incident and stated that the priest involved could promote candidates from the pulpit. So, that is the precedent being set right now.</p><p>However, whether that opens the door to broader endorsements—such as written letters, church-produced media, or full-on political ads on TV from a megachurch—is still unknown. It is very concerning. Like I said, we will have to wait and see how churches use this new leeway—and how prominent political donors might take advantage of it.</p><p>If someone wants to make a tax-free donation to promote a candidate, they could funnel it through a church and let the church handle the endorsement.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> The reality is, voters get their information about politicians from many different sources. For some, it might come directly from the presidential campaign. Still, for others—especially down-ballot races—it could come from more indirect means.</p><p>Depending on the voter, they may not have regular access to the internet or social media. They may not be tech-savvy or connected digitally at all. A significant portion of their political information comes through TV, primarily through ads like these.</p><p>That is where attack ads are particularly effective. Moreover, now, imagine that same person regularly attending church. If their priest or pastor is saying, “This is what you should be doing,” “This is who you should be voting for,” and “This is how to act as a faithful person,” that has a profound influence.</p><p>If someone has a strong connection to their religious leader, that endorsement can significantly shape their vote. This influence had already been happening under the radar, but now it has essentially been given the green light to proceed at full speed ahead. Is there already a legal counter-challenge to this decision?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> So far, I have not seen any formal legal challenges. I am sure efforts are being made behind the scenes, or announcements may be forthcoming soon. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds legally, especially when it comes to directly challenging this interpretation of the Johnson Amendment.</p><p>If it can be challenged, we will see action to at least slow it down or stop it entirely. However, for now, we are in a “wait and see” phase.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen: </strong>How is this being received within your network, such as the Secular Coalition and its partner organizations?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> Across the board, our network has reacted strongly. All of our member organizations are in substantial alignment on this issue. Even in the past, when megachurches came out publicly in support of candidates, the Secular Coalition for America and many of our partners would issue public statements, send letters to the IRS, and encourage members and supporters to do the same.</p><p>Seeing this new stance—effectively dismantling the Johnson Amendment—has sparked considerable concern. Many people are speaking out and trying to figure out what can be done next. What is especially striking is that this new interpretation appears to be limited to churches.</p><p>Other 501(c)(3) organizations—particularly secular nonprofits—are still prohibited from endorsing candidates. While religious organizations can now promote political figures from the pulpit, secular nonprofits, including ours and many of our partner groups, are still bound by these restrictions. It is an apparent double standard.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen: </strong>To be explicit and specific about leaders, what about pastoral political advertising?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe: </strong>It does not appear this ruling will explicitly allow pastors to engage in political advertising. They may, however, be able to circumvent this by sending social media, emails, and other forms of communications to their congregations to further endorse political candidates. </p><p><strong>Jacobsen</strong>, what about temples or mosques—are other religions also allowed to do this?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> Yes, they are. It applies broadly to religious institutions, such as churches, mosques, and temples. However, again, secular 501(c)(3) organizations are excluded from this privilege.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen: </strong>There we go. Are there any final points we should add?</p><p><strong>Onwukwe: </strong>I guess one other thing we have been working on—you might have heard about it—is the Educational Choice for Children Act. That has been in the works for a while now. We discussed it during our lobbying event in March.</p><p>A lot has been happening behind the scenes. It ended up being included in what the Trump administration has been calling their “Big, Beautiful Bill”—the actual language they have used to brand it. It is a terrible name, honestly.</p><p>However, the bottom line is that the bill passed in an amended form. The Secular Coalition for America is particularly concerned about the implications it could have on the separation of church and state, especially in the education sector.</p><p>What this law does is allow for federal school vouchers. The vast majority of those vouchers ultimately end up in private religious schools. That means public funds, which could be used for public schools and essential services, are being diverted to help families pay for religious education. That is a significant problem.</p><p>We are particularly concerned about how this affects public schools and marginalized students. These private religious schools are allowed to discriminate in admissions, whether that is against families of a different religion, students with disabilities, or families who do not meet their financial expectations.</p><p>For example, if a parent does not belong to the school’s preferred faith, the child can be rejected. If a student has a disability that the school does not want to accommodate, the school can also refuse to accept that student.</p><p>Moreover, the vouchers themselves do not cover the full cost of tuition at these schools. So they will not help low-income students get access—they will primarily benefit families who are already close to being able to afford it. It is a subsidy for the middle and upper-middle class, not real access for the underserved.</p><p>Additionally, in rural areas—where there are few or no private schools—students often lack the option to take advantage of the voucher program. In those areas, states that opt into the program will see funding stripped away from their public schools, without offering any viable alternative.</p><p>So there is much concern. We will have to wait and see how this plays out. The way the bill was passed includes an option for states to opt out, which is one positive aspect. States that do not wish to participate in the program are not required to do so.</p><p>However, we are already seeing signs that some states—which have previously expressed support for school vouchers—are moving forward with implementation, despite local opposition.</p><p>Even in states where voters have rejected similar measures in the past, leaders now have the green light to proceed without another public vote. In states where political leadership is divided—say, a governor who supports vouchers and a legislature that does not, or vice versa—this can also lead to significant internal conflict.</p><p>So we will continue to spread the word. You will probably see something from us in the next few days that lays out what the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) is, what it does now that it has passed, and what kind of impact we might see on public education.</p><p>We will continue to raise awareness and ensure that people are informed, so they can speak out against it if they choose.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> Good work—let us stay in touch.</p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> Thanks so much, Scott.</p><p><strong>Jacobsen:</strong> Thanks so much. </p><p><strong>Onwukwe:</strong> Have a good one. Bye-bye.</p><p><strong>Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all</strong><a href="https://www.in-sightpublishing.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><strong> In Sight Publishing</strong></a><strong> content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.</strong> <a href="https://www.in-sightpublishing.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">In Sight Publishing</a> by <a href="https://www.in-sightpublishing.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Scott Douglas Jacobsen</a> is licensed under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0</a>; © <a href="https://www.in-sightpublishing.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">In Sight Publishing</a> by <a href="https://www.in-sightpublishing.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Scott Douglas Jacobsen</a> 2012–Present. All <a href="https://www.wipo.int/trademarks/en/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">trademarks</a>, <a href="https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/performances/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">performances</a>, <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-16.html#h-414476" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">databases</a> & <a href="https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr02281.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">branding</a> are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/WD-html40-970708/htmlweb.html#h-6.2" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Cookies</a> & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with <a href="https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/the-personal-information-protection-and-electronic-documents-act-pipeda/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">PIPEDA</a> & <a href="https://gdpr.eu/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">GDPR</a>; no data from children < 13 (<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-coppa" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">COPPA</a>). Content meets <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">WCAG 2.1 AA</a> under the <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-0.6/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Accessible Canada Act</a> & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">DMCA</a> notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by <a href="https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">BC laws</a>; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.</p><p></p><p><a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://in-sightpublishing.com/tag/ethical-men/" target="_blank">#ethicalMen</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://in-sightpublishing.com/tag/gender-equality/" target="_blank">#genderEquality</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://in-sightpublishing.com/tag/lifestyle/" target="_blank">#lifestyle</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://in-sightpublishing.com/tag/mens-issues/" target="_blank">#menSIssues</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://in-sightpublishing.com/tag/movies/" target="_blank">#movies</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://in-sightpublishing.com/tag/progressive-masculinity/" target="_blank">#progressiveMasculinity</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://in-sightpublishing.com/tag/self-improvement/" target="_blank">#selfImprovement</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://in-sightpublishing.com/tag/technology/" target="_blank">#technology</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://in-sightpublishing.com/tag/the-good-men-project/" target="_blank">#TheGoodMenProject</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://in-sightpublishing.com/tag/travel/" target="_blank">#travel</a></p>