This column was originally published by Sheila Kennedy on her blog, “A Jaundiced Look at the World We Live In.”
By Sheila Kennedy
January 31, 2026
At the base of all policy disputes is a foundational question: What is government for? What sort of decisions are properly within the remit of the state, and which must be left to individuals exercising their own beliefs? The nation’s founders answered that question with the Bill of Rights, which is properly read as a list of things that government is prohibited from doing.
Those amendments answer a fundamental question: who decides, and that makes it an impediment to the “Christian” warriors who want to dictate how the rest of us should live. As most Hoosiers are aware, a lot of those warriors– beneficiaries of Indiana’s extreme gerrymandering–have been elected to Indiana’s embarrassing legislature.
You would think–okay, hope–that this year’s short session would curtail efforts to violate citizens’ individual rights, but you’d be wrong. The Indiana Citizen has recently reported on several bills that would, if passed, advance the desires of those “Christian” nationalists for control over Hoosier behaviors.
One of those is SB 88, which has passed out of committee “with all of the committee’s Republicans supporting the bill and the Democrats who were present opposing it.” It will be heard by the full Senate.
The Citizen tells us that the bill’s author, Sen. Gary Byrne, did strip some of the bill’s most controversial elements ahead of the vote, including a requirement that middle school civics courses teach the meaning and significance of “historic” documents like the Ten Commandments, and another that would have restricted how civics teachers could address race, gender identity and issues of inequality.
In its current form, SB 88 would add something called the Classic Learning Test to the list of college entrance exams state colleges and universities are required to accept. (Like the ACT and SAT.) The Classic Learning Test is described as “a conservative-backed standardized exam that emphasizes classical literature and Christian thinkers.” SB 88 would also expand the statutory definition of “good citizenship” instruction, requiring schools to teach students a version of “good citizenship” that includes graduation from high school, holding a full-time job, and waiting until marriage to have children.
(And here I thought “good citizenship” meant things like civic literacy, jury duty and voting…these days, I’d expand that definition to include protesting and when appropriate, civil disobedience.) As several Democrats noted, the bill would impose (some people’s) moral instruction under the guise of civics education.
The inability of Indiana’s GOP to distinguish between America’s legal structure and their carefully cherry-picked bible lessons is a common hallmark of Christian nationalism. A recent post from Lincoln Square highlights a recent publication from the Heritage Foundation, a follow-up to that organization’s Project 2025:
Do you believe that husbands should be in charge of their wives? Do you think that women who get a divorce ought to be ineligible for government benefits? Are you against gay marriage? Well, I’ve got good news for you!
The Heritage Foundation’s new report, Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years, reads like a white Christian Nationalist fever dream.
There are legitimate disagreements among legal scholars about the intent/meaning of several constitutional provisions. There are legitimate disputes over the application of provisions of the Bill of Rights to contemporary realities the Founders could never have envisioned. But there is absolutely no credible scholarship supporting the notion that government should mandate behavior approved by a religious sect–or impose legal sanctions on behaviors that a given religion disapproves.
There is no historical basis for creating an American Christian theocracy.
Most religions–and most non-believers–share broadly-held views that are also moral: against murder, against theft, against aggressions of various kinds. Our government can and does forbid those behaviors–not because they violate some religious tenets, but because they violate the libertarian premise upon which our government was founded. That premise, articulated by Enlightenment philosophers and endorsed by America’s Founders, was simple and profound: Individuals should be free to pursue their own ends–their own life goals–so long as they do not thereby harm the person or property of someone else, and so long as they are willing to accord an equal liberty to their fellow citizens. Government’s role is to protect our individual liberties while keeping the strong from abusing the weak.
It is not government’s job to prescribe our prayers or to dictate when, how or whether we should procreate, and it’s none of government’s business who we may choose to love. Laws imposing the religious beliefs of these performative “Christians” on the rest of us are unconstitutional and profoundly unAmerican.
Majority members of Indiana’s General Assembly need to take a remedial civics course.
Sheila Suess Kennedy is Emerita Professor of Law and Public Policy at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. As an attorney, she practiced real estate, administrative and business law in Indianapolis before becoming corporation counsel for the City of Indianapolis in 1977. In 1980, she was the Republican candidate for Indiana’s then 1th Congressional District and in 1992, she became executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. She joined the faculty of the School of Public and Environment al Affairs in 1998.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.
