TJ Walker argues against a Texas proposal requiring the Bible on school reading lists, pointing to passages about incest, stoning, and slavery as examples of why it's problematic. He connects this to military and political leaders invoking biblical language to justify wars, warning that state-sponsored theology silences debate and weaponizes faith.
Chapters
Ultimize. Imagine a state school board so wildly out of the mainstream that it wants to require kids in public schools to read a book that includes a story about a father getting drunk, sleeping with not one but two of his daughters. That's right, incest. And then having children with them and presenting that as a part of the moral canon. What fringe left-wing tie-dye-wearing Woodstock-reenacting school board is pushing that? Nope, that would be the great state of Texas, because according to the Times, Texas education officials are seriously considering adding Bible passages and the Bible itself to required reading lists for millions of public school students next year. And yes, the story I described, that's Lot and his daughters in Genesis chapter 19, verses 30 through 38. So let's just be clear about what's happening here. We're talking about requiring public school children in a country founded on freedom from government-imposed religion to read a text that includes incest, mass killing, slavery endorsements, and rules about when to stone your neighbors to death and calling it education. Now, before someone says, "Oh, come on, that's taken out of context," great. Let's add some more context. Here are just a few biblical greatest hits that might make your average modern American pause. Deuteronomy chapter 21:18-21: If your child is stubborn and rebellious, stone them to death. Okay, as a parent, I can understand how that particular Bible verse has appeal from time to time, but is it really something we want to have spread throughout our culture. Leviticus 20:10: If someone commits adultery, kill both parties. Well, I think there are a lot of people in Washington, D.C. hoping that does not become the law of the land. Exodus 21:20-21: Rules for beating slaves. As long as they don't die immediately, you're good. Now, that's a paraphrase, obviously. Leviticus 24:16, blasphemy also punishable by death. Okay, so if you've ever said the, the G-damn word, you should be punished by death according to this book that may soon be required reading by students in Texas. Deuteronomy 22:28, 1 Corinthians 7:29: If a man assaults a woman, he can marry her and pay her father. Okay. Ephesians 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters. Okay, now I'm not bringing this up to dunk on religion. Millions of people find meaning, morality, and comfort in religious texts. But when the government steps in and says, hey kids, this is required reading, we're no longer in the land of personal faith. We're in the land of state-sponsored theology. And that brings us to the Pentagon, where things somehow get even more surreal. Because at the exact same time Texas is saying, let's put more Bibles in the classroom, the US Secretary of Defense— and that is his correct title, by the way— is out there giving what sounds like casting call for a reboot of the Crusades. Pete Hegseth, describing a military rescue operation, compared it to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, complete with Good Friday, a cave, and a surprise on Easter. I'm sorry, what? We're now moving from military briefings to biblical fan fiction. And if that weren't enough, the president himself suggested that God supports the war in Iran, because God is good and wants people taken care of. Which raises an awkward question: if we're now running foreign policy based on biblical logic, are we going all in? Because the Bible also says stone adulterers, kill disobedient children, endorse slavery, wage holy wars. So should we just lean into this? Should we build a modern-day Colosseum, hand Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump a bucket of rocks, and say, "Gentlemen, Leviticus has spoken. May the most righteous man win." After all, they're both well-known adulterers, because that would be biblical consistency, right? Of course, no serious person actually thinks that's going to happen, and that's the point. You can't cherry-pick ancient religious language when it's convenient—God is on our side—and then ignore the parts that would horrify any modern society. Even major religious leaders are pushing back. The Pope himself has warned against using Christianity to justify war, calling that distortion completely foreign to the teachings of Jesus. In his words. So let's step back. What's really going on here? This isn't about faith. This is about using faith as branding. It's about wrapping policy, whether it's education in Texas or military action abroad, in a kind of divine marketing campaign. And as someone who studies communication for a living, I'll tell you exactly what this is. It's incredibly effective messaging It's simple, emotional, tribal, powerful. God is on our side is the ultimate slogan, but it's also the most dangerous because the moment you claim divine authority, you've essentially shut down debate. How do you argue with someone who says, not only am I right, but God agrees with me? That's not persuasion. That's a conversation ender, and in a democracy, conversation enders are a problem. So here's where I land: if you want to read the Bible, read it, study it, debate it, love it if you want to, but the moment the government mandates it exclusively and not mandating other religious texts, or politicians start using it to justify bombs and bullets, you're no longer practicing religion. You're weaponizing it, and history has shown us over and over again that never ends well. Now, to be clear, I'm all in favor of schools wanting to have a course on comparative religion and asking students over the course of a semester to read, let's say, half a dozen of the most significant religious texts covering a wide range of religions. Certainly the Bible, as the Quran, as other religious texts, can be— the argument can be made they've had tremendous influence over history, society, thinking. So they are important documents to have an understanding of. But when you require one and not the other, with wink wink, nudge nudge, this is the real one, the others are fake, That's when I really had— Quick thought before we move on. If you're like most people, you don't need another idea. You need something that actually sticks because the real game isn't learning once. It's seeing the same useful message enough times that it finally becomes automatic. That's exactly why I created Ultimize. So if this show is giving you even a little value, go to ultimize.com and grab a free course. There's one on communication skills. One on building better habits. Just pick one and start. It takes about a minute to sign up. It's free, and it's actually designed to stay with you. Ultimize.com. Ultimize.
