James Talarico, a current Texas State Representative and aspiring U.S. Senator, has run his Senate campaign with a focus on protections for vulnerable communities, progressive economic policies and God. By centering religion, the former seminary student and devout Christian has emerged as a liberal answer to the largely conservative phenomenon of weaving religious rhetoric into modern political conversations.
Talarico’s unapologetic admission that his faith is “foundational” and belief that America may benefit from a stronger spiritual unity match behavior seen more commonly on the other side of the aisle—for instance, at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service on Sept. 21. There, before an audience of 90,000, eulogies from President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other members of the Trump administration invoked Christian imagery and religious rhetoric time and again. Trump called Kirk a “matryr now for American freedom” and said “we want to bring God back into our beautiful USA like never before,” while Vance emphasized “the importance of following God.”
Watching some of our nation’s most prominent political leaders and promising young candidates profess their devotion to Christianity and hint at the value of adopting the belief system may leave some viewers wondering: What ever happened to the separation of church and state?
That idea is one that we see invoked frequently, often without much context or explanation. As commonly understood today, separation of church and state refers to the government’s responsibility to keep religious belief out of congressional, judicial and Presidential behavior: Congress cannot pass a law because the Bible says there ought to be one; the Supreme Court can’t make decisions based on the Torah’s guidance; the President can’t force every citizen to recite the Quran.
This modern understanding of the concept, however, assumes a neater bifurcation between religion and government than actually exists. The United States has never had anything but a Christian President; our Pledge of Allegiance refers to the country as “one nation under God;” our currency bears the motto, “In God We Trust.” Though restrictions on religious oversight are mentioned in the Constitution, the separation of church and state as it’s generally invoked is not. So what do the Constitution and more recent legal rulings actually have to say on the matter — and what does that mean for the permissibility of religious political rhetoric today?
The American origin of the idea of the need for some kind of separation appears in the First Amendment, which reads in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This sentence consists of two important ideas. While the Establishment clause — the first half — prevents the government from establishing a national church, the Free Exercise clause — the latter half — guarantees that citizens are free to engage in whatever religious practices they choose. Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted the provisions to mean that the United States government is responsible for neither promoting nor condemning specific religious beliefs or practices among its citizens. The Constitution explicitly denounces state-sponsored religion, but does not say whether the federal government can invoke religious rhetoric — or use it in media or currency.
The idea of separation of church and state entered popular use later, as the United States grew and developed under the sometimes vague provisions of the Constitution. In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson described the religion clause of the First Amendment as “building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Earlier in the letter, he says “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,” suggesting a concern about government influence in citizens’ ability to freely practice religion. Jefferson seems to be explaining the need to protect the church from the state, which is the inverse of how many interpret the principle today.
Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution’s comments on religion in new contexts. Lemon v. Kurtzman, a 1971 Supreme Court case, offered a new, more explicit standard by which to evaluate religious influence over, or bias in, legislation. In an 8-1 ruling, the Court found that state funding of non-secular, non-public schools was unconstitutional under the Establishment clause. The case introduced the “Lemon test” — to pass the Lemon test, a law must meet three key criteria: It must have a secular non-religious purpose; it must neither advance nor inhibit any specific religion; and it must not promote excessive entanglement between the government and religion. From 1971 to 2022, the Lemon test stood as a precedent dictating the appropriate role of legislative engagement with religious doctrine.
In 2022’s Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that a public high school football coach would be allowed to engage in prayer after student football games under the First Amendment. The court’s majority opinion, authored by Neil Gorsuch, argued that limiting coach Joseph Kennedy’s ability to pray, regardless of the public and professional setting in which he chose to do so, would be an invasion of his right to free exercise. The decision in essence abandoned the Lemon test — which had lost favor among some conservatives since its inception — in favor of a new judicial approach that favors examining “historical practices and understandings” in cases concerning religion. Though it’s unclear how courts will apply the new strategy in future cases, it seems safe to assume it could indicate an approaching erosion of Jefferson’s “wall” between church and state.
In light of this history, it’s clear that Trump, Vance and any other government officials are safe to share their religious beliefs at Kirk’s memorial or on any other public stage — to do so is both constitutionally sound and historically precedented.
Trump’s declaration that Kirk “believed in values we should all believe in” enters murkier territory, as do Vance’s remarks on the “importance” of Christian faith. Though Trump likely refers to a combination of Kirk’s political, personal and religious values, the comment directly followed Trump saying “we go forward strengthened by his faith,” which makes it clear that religion is a factor at play. Similarly, Vance walks a fine line between attesting to Christianity’s value in his own life and prescribing it to his audience. These comments don’t violate the terms of the Constitution — they neither create laws establishing a national religion nor inhibit the practice of non-Christian religions — but they do indicate a willingness on the part of our President and Vice President to portray Christianity as an inalienable aspect of ideal American life.
Historically, the relationship between church and state in the United States has been consistently changeable and has responded to the prevailing social and political attitudes of a given moment. Based on recent Supreme Court decisions and the rise of religious rhetoric in politics, we may be on the cusp of the next major shift — the exact nature of that shift, though, remains to be seen.