There has been a centuries-long debate in the U.S. about the position of faith in government and the line between church and state. Democratic values argue for representation for all, but reality has demonstrated when religion is institutionalized, it’s often imposed on others.
Despite constitutional protections against the state establishment of a religion, Christianity has by far been the most aggressively injected into the foundation of the country. All levels of courts in the nation have inconclusively navigated how church and state should be separated, but the new presidential administration may have accidentally figured it out.
In early February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a two-year trial of a White House Faith Office, or WHFO. As a part of his alleged agenda to restore and protect Christian values in the nation, the office intends to address concerns about policies that infringe on the free practice of religion.
Explicitly, the order aims to “combat anti-Semitic, anti-Christian,” and “anti-religious” bias. In a nation where two thirds of Americans already identify as Christian, this is speculated to further marginalize minority beliefs. The establishment of this office has been met with stark criticism for its speculated usage to further a Christian nationalist agenda.
This new approach has emboldened moves that likely would not have taken place in prior political climates. The Iowa legislature recently passed House File 884, allowing public schools to hire religious chaplains as a support service for students. Although 62 percent of the state’s general population identifies as Christian, 36 percent identify as unaffiliated or with another minority religion.
The U.S. has always claimed to be a land of religious freedom — which includes the right to practice and to refrain from practicing any religion. Despite the nation’s founders fighting religious imposition themselves, Protestant Christian values have historically been forced on the American people to justify atrocities like the genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of Africans, and in more modern times, the revocation of previous rights like abortion.
There is an abundance of reasons to reject religion in government. However, with the prominent presence of Christianity in the nation, it is apparent these values will continue to seep into government.
Could a taskforce like the WHFO help clarify that separation? Or conversely, could this office offer more room for minority practices?
In pining for political support, Trump has almost impressively united a hodgepodge of practices. Trump himself is said to have grown up Presbyterian and sits alongside Vice President JD Vance, who converted to Catholicism. He also notoriously endorsed the launch of the “God Bless the USA Bible” — commonly known as the “Trump Bible” — embedded with the King James Version, originally translated for usage by the Church of England. Earlier in the year, he hosted a non-denominational Prayer Breakfast at the White House to highlight religious liberty, and although not Catholic himself, he recently issued a message to the public in celebration of Lent.
He clearly will appeal to any religious audience for his own gain under the ruse of empowering the diaspora of Christianity. However, while walking the tight line of unconstitutionality, the only legal way for the office to persist is to hear the appeals of all religions in the nation … which may be a good thing.
It’s a fact that the U.S. population is overwhelmingly Christian, and with the unaffiliated share of the population consistently growing, having risen from 23 percent in 2014 to 29 percent in 2023-24, according to a Pew Research poll, there will always be respect for secularity in government. Christian representation grows into oppression with the imposition of values onto unassuming populations — primarily on religions that are explicitly not Christian.
Separate from the unaffiliated population, non-Christians make up 7 percent of Americans. Although miniscule in comparison, forcing any group to comply with policies directly against their beliefs constitutes oppression — which is exactly what the WHFO is designed to address.
“I read the executive order … and it specifically mentions anti-Christian and anti-Semetic discrimination. I think the fact that they specifically singled those two out is very telling as to what the administration’s priorities are,” the UI student said.
The modern argument of the separation of church and state can be boiled down to religious representation versus full secularity. In a generally secular government, an office that can act as a safeguard for all religious segments of the population opens the door to a full religious diaspora of the nation to find representation in government.
It is highly debatable to what extent the new WHFO will protect non-Christian practices. However, its establishment only leaves greater room to try.
Is religion in government inherently bad when the full diaspora of the nation is present, too?