culture

Ten Commandments Can Remain in Texas Classrooms

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it’s constitutional to require public schools in Texas to display the Ten Commandments.

Tuesday’s ruling was by the narrowest of margins (9-8) but it nevertheless upheld a 2025 Texas law that was immediately challenged in court. Critics cried foul, claiming the legislation violated the Establishment Clause.

In the ruling, a majority of judges disagreed. Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote:

“S.B. 10 looks nothing like a historical religious establishment. It does not tell churches or synagogues or mosques what to believe or how to worship or whom to employ as priests, rabbis, or imams. It punishes no one who rejects the Ten Commandments, no matter the reason.”

He continued:

“Students are neither catechized on the Commandments nor taught to adopt them. Nor are teachers commanded to proselytize students who ask about the displays or contradict students who disagree with them.”

Both legal and popular debate over historical displays of faith goes back decades, of course. Ironically, though, when it comes to the Ten Commandments and the classroom, Hollywood deserves credit for both popularizing and promoting the display of God’s laws in school.

When the 1956 film, “The Ten Commandments,” came to the big screen, promoters partnered with the Fraternal Order of Eagles to fund, create, and place more than 150 granite depictions of the Scripture verses – including in public schools.

Secularists challenged the public expression of faith in the 1960s, leading to the banning of prayer in the classroom (Engel v. Vitale) and Bible reading (Abington School District v. Schempp). In 1980’s “Stone v. Graham,” the Supreme Court built upon that antagonism towards faith and ruled certain ways of displaying the Ten Commandments were unconstitutional. Basically, it said an existing Kentucky law constituted an endorsement of religion and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

But on Tuesday, a majority of the Fifth Circuit found that the Texas law threaded the constitutional needle.

Such strong opposition to the posting of the Ten Commandments raises the question: What do opponents find so troubling about posting such fundamental and foundational directives?

In short, is it really a problem to post something that encourages students to … 

Put God first, respect His name, observe a rest day, honor your parents, don’t murder, be faithful in marriage, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t cheat, and don’t be jealous of others?

Kelly Shackelford, who serves as president and CEO of the First Liberty Institute, and whose group filed an amicus brief in the case, stated:

“The Ten Commandments have been a part of our nation’s history and tradition; banning them from schools because they are religious is not justified by the Constitution and would undermine a comprehensive education for America’s students.”

Louisiana currently has a similar law on the books and other states are expected to soon follow suit.  Don’t be surprised if the ongoing debate continues and eventually finds itself at the United States Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Takes Case About Colorado Discrimination Against Catholic Preschools

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about the state of Colorado excluding Catholic families and preschools from the state’s universal preschool program because of their biblical beliefs about sexuality and marriage. 

It seems that despite Colorado’s three Supreme Court First Amendment losses since 2018, the state legislature and agencies are still showing contempt for First Amendment rights.

The state’s universal pre-kindergarten program (UPK), launched in 2023, pays preschools $6,000 a year to cover 10-15 hours of preschool costs for eligible four-year-olds. Voters overwhelmingly supported the program, which was funded through increasing prices and taxes for nicotine products.  

But the UPK program requires participating preschools to agree with the state’s position affirming “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” – clearly violating Catholic teaching. 

Because of this blatant discrimination against religious preschools, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dan and Lisa Sheley, parents of seven children, along with the Archdiocese of Denver and two Denver-area Catholic parishes with their preschools. 

Becket, a non-profit religious freedom law firm, explained in a press release that Colorado was discriminating against the Sheleys and other religious parents who would normally receive preschool tuition assistance from the state’s UPK: 

Parents like Becket clients Dan and Lisa Sheley, who are raising their children in the Catholic faith, hoped to use this benefit at their parish preschool in the Archdiocese of Denver. 

But Colorado imposed restrictions that excluded all Archdiocesan preschools from the program because they ask families to be supportive of the Catholic faith. 

To participate in the state’s UPK program, preschools must sign a Program Service Agreement,created by the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, agreeing they will provide eligible children and their families an equal opportunity to enroll and attend “regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability.” 

Of course, it’s patently ridiculous to consider a four-year-old having a “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” These are ideological constructs, imposed on children by agenda-driven activists. 

But parents who send their children to Catholic preschools must also agree with basic biblical teachings: God created humans in His image; humans come in two forms, male or female; and marriage unites a husband and wife. 

The lawsuit explained that the two parishes in the case, St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton and St. Bernadette Catholic Parish in Lakewood, “serve the educational mission of the Catholic Church by operating preschool programs to assist parents in the religious and educational upbringing of their children.” 

Preschool staff are expected to uphold the church’s teaching, as Becket explained in the complaint: 

[B]ecause Catholic schools cannot affirm LGBTQ identities and relationships, the Archdiocese advises Catholic schools to have all teachers sign employment agreements annually “acknowledging the expectation that they will uphold Catholic moral teachings in word and deed.”

The complaint cited the Archdiocese of Denver’s “Guidance for Issues Concerning the Human Person and Sexual Identity”:

Catholic schools in particular need to implement policies that are consonant with Christian anthropology’s view of the person. Schools should avoid validating or affirming the premises of gender ideology, even indirectly, by silence or inaction.

The guidance goes on to say, 

[A] Catholic school cannot treat a same-sex couple as a family equivalent to the natural family without compromising its mission and Catholic identity. 

But when states like Colorado add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to nondiscrimination laws, they elevate mutable sexual characteristics to the same level as religious freedom – creating conflict.

The Archdiocese of Denver oversees 36 preschools serving around 1,500 students a year, with many receiving scholarships or tuition discounts. Becket Senior Counsel and attorney for the families and preschools stated that these families deserve to be part of the universal preschool program, too: 

Colorado promised free preschool for all, then slammed the door on families who chose a religious education for their children. After three losses in religious freedom cases at the Supreme Court, Colorado should know better. 

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states cannot exclude families from government benefits because of their faith. We’re confident the Court will say the same thing here and put a stop to Colorado’s no-Catholics-need-apply rules.

The bottom line, as Becket argues, is this: Religious schools should be able to participate in publicly available programs, and religious school students should be able to participate in these programs on equal footing as students who attend non-religious schools.

The case,  St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, should be heard by the court in the fall of 2026. 

Related articles and resources: 

Landmark Victory for Free Speech at the U.S. Supreme Court

Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision – What it Means

Religious Freedom and the Playground Case

State Can’t Discriminate Against Religion in Tuition Assistance Program, Supreme Court Rules

Supreme Court Smacks Down Colorado’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban in 8-1 Decision

A Win for Religious Freedom: SCOTUS Rules State May Not Shut Out Religious Schools from Government Scholarship Program

New Poll: 70% of Americans Support Medical Oversight for Abortion Pills

New polling data reveals most Americans agree there should be more oversight of the distribution and consumption of chemical abortion pills like mifepristone.

According to polling conducted by CRC Research for The 85 Fund, as reported by The Daily Wire and Susan B Anthony Pro-life America, approximately 70% of Americans support requiring an in person medical evaluation before and after taking the abortion pill.

A closely related question found that 67% of voters support requiring an in-person doctor’s visit in order to obtain the abortion pill. This policy was previously upheld by the FDA but abandoned by the previous pro-abortion administration.

Source: The Daily Wire

What makes this data so interesting and newsworthy is how it breaks down across political lines. Support for medical oversight was not limited to a single party. In fact, 72% of Republicans, 68% of Independents and 63% of Democrats all supported reinstating in-person doctor visits before accessing abortion pills.

The data shows a clear majority of Americans in every major political party support some form of in-person medical attention before abortion pills are dispensed.

Concerns over medical oversight are reinforced by research from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), which raised questions about the safety of women using mifepristone last year.  

As reported by the Daily Citizen in May, the EPPC released a study revealing nearly 11% of women who take the abortion pill experienced serious adverse effects within 40 days, including sepsis, hemorrhaging, infection and emergency room visits. 

Those numbers are 22 times higher than the FDA’s current label, which suggests the rate of adverse effects is only 0.5%.

Following the release of the report, Senator Josh Hawley questioned HHS Secretary Kennedy at a committee hearing. The secretary committed to a complete review of the chemical abortion pill by the FDA.

Instead of cracking down on the abortion pill, the FDA has made abortion pills even more available by approving a generic abortion pill alternative.  

Several pro-life organizations and advocates have accused HHS and the White House of intentionally slow-walking the review. They argue that recent findings demonstrate the need for stronger safeguards and removing in-person visits and medical oversight allows for serious complications to go untreated.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is calling on the Trump administration to revisit current FDA protocols and reinstate requirements that were previously in place, including in-person dispensing and physician oversight. They argue basic medical standards should apply to abortion.

Recently, Senator Josh Hawley recently introduced a senate bill to ban the abortion pill and give women the right to sue manufacturers for damages. Congresswoman Diana Harshbarger, a pharmacist, introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

When abortion policy is often sharply divided, broad bipartisan support from a majority of Americans for medical oversight of the abortion pill should not be ignored. HHS and the FDA should use their authority to restore in-person medical oversight for abortion pill use.

Pam Bondi Fired: A Look at Her Work for Freedom, Families and Children

President Donald Trump announced this morning that Pam Bondi was fired from her position as attorney general. “She will be transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector,” he stated.

He also stated that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche would be serving as acting attorney general until her replacement is nominated and confirmed. 

In a post on Truth Social, the president praised Bondi as “a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend” who “did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in Crime across our Country, with Murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900.” 

As head of the Department of Justice, Bondi had done much to protect religious freedom, families and children. Here are just a few examples of those actions. 

Religious Freedom

Instead of weaponizing the FBI to intimidate and arrest pro-life supporters or targeting “radical-traditionalist Catholics” as “violent extremists,” both of which had taken place in the Biden administration, Bondi worked to affirm religious freedom and protect places of worship. 

When a group of activists, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon, invaded Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota in January, Bondi had the pro-illegal alien activists arrested. She made clear that the DOJ was committed to protecting religious freedom, posting on X, “We will protect our houses of worship.” 

Protecting Girls Sports

Under Bondi’s leadership, the DOJ acted against schools and state education departments that allowed boys to participate in girls sports and to use girls locker rooms, showers and restrooms.

In April 2025, the Departments of Justice and Education announced the formation of “the Title IX Special Investigations Team … to ensure timely, consistent resolutions to protect students, and especially female athletes, from the pernicious effects of gender ideology in school programs and activities.” 

Among other actions, the DOJ filed a civil lawsuit against Maine for failing to protect women in women’s sports; sued the California Department of Education and California Interscholastic Federation for violating Title IX; and filed suit against Minnesota for discriminating against girls by failing to “protect girls sports and intimate spaces.” 

Standing Against Transgenderism

The former attorney general took a strong stand against the mutilation of confused children with “transgender” medical interventions. In an April 2025 memo, Bondi directed the DOJ to investigate “transgender” medical interventions performed on minors. 

Among other actions to protect children, she told attorneys to investigate manufacturers and distributors who promote the off-label use of puberty blocking drugs and opposite-sex hormones; pursue investigations of false claims submitted to federal health care programs for claims related to radical gender experimentation; and work with whistleblowers who have knowledge of any violations under the False Claims Act.

Those actions led to hospitals, clinics and universities across the country shutting down programs that damaged countless minors with experimental and mutilating puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones and surgeries. 

Fox News said the president was “reportedly considering replacing Bondi with Environmental Protection Agency Director Lee Zeldin, according to the sources familiar with the matter.” 

The news outlet pointed to controversy over her handling of files about the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as part of the motive for her firing. 

In a press release, Bondi stated: 

Over the next month I will be working tirelessly to transition the office of Attorney General to the amazing Todd Blanche before moving to an important private sector role I am thrilled about, and where I will continue fighting for President Trump and this Administration. 

She said leading the department was “the honor of a lifetime,” and pointed to accomplishments such as securing “the lowest murder rate in 125 years” and the “first-ever terrorism convictions against members of Antifa.” 

The Daily Citizen wishes Pam Bondi well and is grateful for her good work on behalf of religious freedom, families and children. 

Related articles and resources: 

Attorney General Pam Bondi Sues Maine for Title IX Violations

Department of Justice Launches Title IX Task Force to Protect Women’s Sports

DOJ Arrests Three Activists Who Disrupted Cities Church Service in St. Paul

DOJ Targets Those Mutilating Children with ‘Transgender’ Drugs and Surgeries

Don Lemon, Other Activists Arrested for Disrupting Church Service in St. Paul

The FBI Deeply Needs Reform – and Fast

FBI Investigates Three Major Hospitals for Mutilating Children

Feds Pressure California After Boy Wins in Girls Track and Field Championship

Maine Schools Violated Title IX, Must Apologize, Feds Say

More Hospitals Stop Mutilation of Sexually Confused Children

Pam Bondi Directs DOJ Attorneys to Investigate Transgender Procedures for Minors

Pam Bondi Pledges to End ‘Partisan Weaponization’ of Department of Justice

President Trump Signs Order Protecting Children From Transgender Medical Interventions

Research Shows Young Men Want Marriage Yet Lack Confidence in Dating

An important new survey from the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) on the marital and fatherhood interests of young men in America tell us that only 6% of those age 18 through 23 are married and just 25% of those between 24 and 29-years of age have a wedding ring on their finger. And less than one-third of unmarried men are currently in a romantic relationship. For those young men who do marry, most of them marry after age 30 as the average age of first marriage for men is 30.2.

As IFS notes, “Young men, in sum, are having a hard time in matters of love.”

So, are young men even interested in marriage and fatherhood? That is an extremely important question for the family formation prospects in the United States, and the news might be better than most imagine.

This new IFS data indicates that young men still have a high interest in marrying with 68% saying a definite “yes” while only 21% are “not sure” for various reasons and only 11% express no desire to marry at all. Conservatives are notably more likely than moderates or liberals to indicate an interest in marriage, as well as those currently in a relationship.

Religious young men are notably more likely to show an interest in marriage over their secular or nominally religious peers. The differentials are 88%, 60% and 71% respectively.

Those who have earned or are pursuing a college education are more likely to be interested in marrying. Not surprisingly, those who are not currently working are much more likely to be unsure or not interested in marrying. This is significant as the number of young men classified as NEET – not employed, pursuing any education or training – has increased, doubling since 1990.

For the minority of men who are not sure or not planning to marry, the leading reasons given were “hard to find the right person” (44%), “other life priorities” (40%), “unnecessary” (38%), and “not ready to make a commitment” at 36%. Only 32% listed finances as a leading hinderance.

Desire to be Dads

A strong majority of young American men (62%) say they would like to have children one day. Only 19% said they definitely would not, while 20% said they were not sure. Married men were more likely to say they wanted children (76% vs 61% for unmarried), once again showing that marriage is one of the greatest promoters of national fertility.

Conservative-leaning men are the most likely to say they want children at 76%, while only 48% of liberal men said they definitely want children. Just 10% of conservative men said they were sure they did not want children, while 30% of liberal and 15% of moderate-leaning men said they did not.

Like marriage, religion is a very positive factor driving greater interest in fatherhood. Eighty-three percent of religious men said they wanted to become fathers with only 6% of them saying they had no interest. In fact, religion was the most powerful differential followed by conservatism. Only 51% of secular men desire to be fathers, while a quarter said they did not desire this and 24% were “not sure.” Nominal believers fell right in the middle between these two.

The Dating Hurdle

Of course, young men cannot get married and become married fathers if they never meet the girl who will become their wives. There is a very real dating drought in America. 

Yet this new IFS data tells us that young single men are very interested (74%) in dating and religious (82%) and conservative men (80%) are far more likely to be interested in dating than their secular (71%) and liberal (71%) peers. Full-time employed and college students were highly likely to be interested in dating as well, at 77% and 79%.

So, what is keeping these men from getting out there and meeting their romantic interest? IFS explains, “About half indicate that it has been difficult to find someone who will go out with them, and nearly 6 in 10 report that that the fear of being turned down makes them reluctant to ask.” This matches with a recent IFS report that said 29% of men reported feeling “confident when approaching someone I’m interested in.” Only 39% of young men believe, “I am attractive to potential dating partners.”

A mere third of men confessed they were good at picking up on social cues on a date, while 42% said they were “good at managing my emotions when on a date.” And just 39% of men said, “I trust my judgement when it comes to choosing a romantic partner.” Sadly, only 31% of men were able to stay positive after a bad date or a relationship setback. These are very sad findings.

So, the real problems facing men meeting their future wife and mother of their children is not one of desire or interest. It is a lack of confidence in one’s potential as a desirable partner and ability to be an interesting, poised date.

This is hopeful news because the desire for dating, marriage and fatherhood is clearly present in young men. We just need to help them build the confidence and skills needed to meet, propose to, and marry the woman who will be their future wife. Family formation in America rests on us doing a better job at helping these young men develop these basic adult skills. We must get busy coming up with sure ways to build this confidence in young men. This polling data reveals they are asking for that help!

Related Articles and Resources: 

The American Dating Drought and Hope for Fixing It

New Study: Online Dating Produces Fewer Healthy Relationships

Young Person Explains Why Young People Aren’t Getting Married

Who Falls in Love Faster, Men or Women?

Make Dating for Marriage Great Again

Don’t Believe the Modern Myth. Marriage Remains Good for Men

Important New Research on How Married Parents Improve Child Well-Being

How Marriage Fights Against Deaths of Despair

New Research: Marriage Still Provides Major Happiness Premium

Harvard Evolutionary Biologist Brilliantly Explains Necessity of Monogamous Marriage