Legislation introduced by two members from the Houston area would mandate that a nativity scene be erected on the Texas Capitol grounds in December. The action was taken at a time when a number of Republican lawmakers are attempting to blur the lines between church and state.
In the Senate, the attivity scene bill was filed as Senate Bill 515 by state senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), and in the House, it was filed as House Bill 1497 by state representative Briscoe Cain (R-Deer Park).
“Religious liberties and freedom of expression of our faith, Free Exercise Cause, are very important in our State Legislature,” said Middleton, “and this is something that I thought was important for everybody in the state that celebrates Christmas.”
However, Christmas is not observed by everyone in the state. The vast majority of Texas adults (77%) identify as Christian, according to the Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study. About 18% of people are not religiously attached, while 4% of people follow non-Christian religions (Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism together account for around 1% of the population).
The reasons for and against a show of nativity
Middleton cited a number of current exhibits at the Texas Capitol that are connected to Christianity and Christmas. “We have Christmas trees in the Texas House,” he replied. “The Texas Senate has Christmas trees. Actually, every workstation in the house has a Bible. Every desk in the Senate has a Bible. Additionally, both chambers start each day with prayer.
“The Christmas tree has essentially become a secular symbol,” said David Brockman, a nonresident researcher in religion and public policy at Rice University’s Baker Institute.
“In fact, the Supreme Court has talked about a Christmas tree, Santa Claus, reindeer, things like that as being primarily secular, rather than sectarian,” Brockman stated. “A scene of nativity is completely different. A tableau of nativity is overtly Christian.
Asked whether he was concerned about what a display means for non-Christians, Middleton said, “They don’t have to visit the nativity scene, just like they don’t have to visit the House chamber and see the Christmas tree. They don’t have to visit the Senate chamber and see the Christmas tree. It says, In God We Trust’ above the Senate dais. It says In God We Trust’ above the House dais. They don’t have to see it.”
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank Church Chair of Public Affairs at Boise State University, disagreed, arguing that the move was part and parcel of wider efforts by Christian nationalists to impose their version of Christianity on the American government.
“There definitely is a constituency of citizens in Texas and in the United States who feel very upset by the sidelining of faith in the United States, Christian faith in the United States, and who feel very sure that it has been to the nation’s detriment,” Martin stated. “That constituency is enjoying in this moment a kind of access to power and the microphone that they haven’t had for a long time.”
David Brockman cited the same trend. He pointed to a 2023 bill to require the placement of theTen Commandmentsin all public school classrooms a version of which passed in Louisiana, but which is now under a federal court injunction.
As for Middleton’s argument that non-Christians are under no obligation to look at a nativity display, Brockman said that’s missing, or ignoring, the point.
“It does risk saying to non-Christian Texans that they are outsiders in their own state Capitol,” Brockman said.
No such thing as church-state separation?
Middleton cited the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds, which withstood a U.S. Supreme Court challenge, as a further argument in favor of a nativity display. He also rejected the argument that such displays violated the Constitution or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
“There is no such thing as the separation of church and state,” Middleton said. “That is a made-up doctrine that was in one letter from (Thomas) Jefferson to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists.”
Brockman countered that while the Constitution does not use the words “separation of church and state,” the principle of church-state separation is very much in the Constitution. He noted the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, which had been a common practice in the colonies and then in the new states prior to the Constitution. Further, he said, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit the government from favoring any one religion over another.
“The argument that because the words church-state separation’ are not in the Constitution means that the principle doesn’t exist would also apply to the concept of federalism, which, the word federalism’ does not appear in the Constitution, or separation of powers,’ that also does not appear in the Constitution, or checks and balances,’ Brockman said. And pretty much everybody, including conservatives, agree that the principles of federalism, checks and balances, and separation of powers do exist in the Constitution, despite the fact that those are not specifically mentioned.”
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
