Editorial: Religious liberty and the 90th Texas Legislature

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick issued a new set of interim charges to four committees of the Texas Senate on July 27. Those directed to the Religious Liberty Committee are the focus here.

I’m interested in these charges not just because religious liberty is a core Baptist principle for which Baptists have fought and advocated more than 400 years. I’m interested in these charges because the way some are defining religious liberty looks and sounds different than the historic Baptist understanding.

We need to pay attention to this difference and continue guarding religious liberty for the reason Baptists have championed it for centuries—that following the Lord should be freely chosen, not coerced in any way by human agency.

What and why of interim charges

Jordan Wat of Texas 2036 explains interim charges: “An interim charge is a formal directive—essentially an assignment—issued to a legislative committee … to study specific topics, evaluate the implementation of existing laws, or examine agency performance. Prior to the next [legislative] session, committees publish interim reports that summarize key findings and often outline potential policy approaches for the next session” (emphasis added).

Wat also explains why Texans should pay attention to interim charges: “After charges are issued, committees schedule public hearings, this year running from spring through fall. Stakeholders, state agency officials, and members of the public can testify and share input on the issues under review. Committees then publish their interim reports in late fall or early winter, which can help inform bill development ahead of the next session” (emphasis added).

This less-publicized interim work can significantly shape the highly publicized legislative session that occurs every two years.

With Patrick’s charges to the Religious Liberty Committee on July 27, now is the time for Baptists in Texas to engage with the Texas Senate’s Religious Liberty Committee. So, what are Patrick’s charges related to religious liberty?

Patrick’s interim charges

Patrick’s third charge to the committee is a standard review of past legislation. In this instance, he specifies Senate Bill 1049 passed in the 89th Legislature. SB 1049 allows for excused absences from public school for students “attending a released time course.”

The statute defines “released time course” as “a course in religious instruction offered by a private entity.”

The other two charges address religious liberty more generally.

• Compare state and federal laws protecting religious liberty.

Patrick specified Article 1, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution and the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

He called for “recommendations to ensure all Texans have the right to practice their religion, free from discrimination or government interference” and determining “if additional protections are needed to ensure religious liberty is protected in Texas.”

I can support this charge. I do wonder, however, how broad Patrick’s understanding of religious liberty is. In his repeated assertion that there is no constitutional separation of church and state in the U.S., he doesn’t make clear how church and state should relate to each other. He also obscures the reason Baptists have championed church and state separation so long.

Our Baptist forebears knew all about the limits of religious liberty because it often did not extend to them, even in the American colonies. They suffered state-sanctioned repercussions for their religious beliefs at the hands of New England Congregationalists and Virginia Anglicans.

Baptists knew about Muslims, Jews, and those of other faiths during those years. And they advocated for religious liberty for everyone because they also knew from experience about religious oppression.

As Religious Liberty Committee members study religious liberty protections, they need to hear from Baptists in Texas who know and understand what separation of church and state means and how that separation protects religious liberty for all people, not just Christians.

• Educate Texans on religious liberty.

Patrick calls for examining “ways to educate Texans about their sacred and constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty. Make recommendations to inform and remind Texans of their religious liberty rights in all settings, including, but not limited to: education, workplace, government, and healthcare.”

Again, I can support this charge. And again, I wonder how broad Patrick’s understanding of religious liberty is. Before the State of Texas goes about educating Texans about their religious liberty rights, we need to be clear on what religious liberty rights are.

While Patrick himself has defined religious liberty in pretty vague terms, other Christians have claimed there are no intended constitutional religious liberty protections for non-Christians.

In a May podcast episode, Jenna Ellis said, “The whole point of having a civil society that recognizes the principles of religious freedom is so … we can preserve and protect the Christian way of life,” which includes evangelizing and discipling children. She and her guest also discussed the need to prefer Christianity—whether legally was unclear.

The following month, Patrick, standing immediately behind President Trump in the Oval Office and speaking to the findings of Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, defined religious liberty as “our conscience … that little voice inside of us that tells us right from wrong … that voice that when we’re in trouble, we can talk to in our quiet moments … that voice that when we feel unloved and alone that can comfort us through a higher power.”

I propose a clearer and stronger definition of religious liberty, the one stated in the Baptist Faith and Message: “The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men,* and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.”

If we’re going to teach Texans about their religious liberty rights, we need to start with a strong and clear definition of what those rights are.

Preference and privilege as coercion

Many religious liberty advocates today want to privilege Christianity legislatively. If that’s behind Patrick’s interim charges to the Texas Senate’s Religious Liberty Committee, all Christians ought to oppose it, not just Baptists.

The history of Christianity in Europe clearly demonstrates legislatively privileging Christianity not only coerces people to claim Christianity to gain or maintain privilege, it also guts the very thing it privileges by privileging it.

Yes, religious liberty needs to be protected, but without privileging any religion over another. Not to promote a secular state or to minimize Christianity, but to ensure those who choose to identify with Christ do so freely and without state-generated ulterior motives.

As Religious Liberty Committee members study religious liberty protections during this interim, they need to hear from Baptists in Texas who know and understand what religious liberty is. They also need to hear us championing equal protection of religious liberty for all people. The list of committee members and their contact information can be accessed here.

* The 1963 Baptist Faith and Message was written at a time when male pronouns were used to reference people in general.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher, and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at [email protected]. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.