The evangelical Christian hit “Testify to Love” just got a powerful pro-LGBTQ reboot

This newsletter is free and goes out to over 24,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo or PayPal.

Subscribe now

If you were into Christian music about three decades ago, you wouldn’t have been able to escape Avalon. The band, co-founded by Michael Passons, earned multiple gold records, Grammy nominations, and a long string of #1 hits on the Christian charts.

Their most famous song was “Testify to Love,” which includes lines like “With every breath I take, I will give thanks to God above. For as long as I shall live, I will testify to love.” A reader who grew up in evangelical culture told me, “you could summon this whole generation with this one song.”

But as anyone who’s ever had to deal with white evangelicals can tell you, love is always conditional in that environment.

In 2003, around the height of their fame in the Christian world, Passons announced he was leaving the band to pursue a solo career… which made some sense. The band continued with different members. Yet Passons never released any kind of solo album.

In 2020, we learned why. He didn’t actually leave the band of his own volition at all. He was kicked out of it for being gay.

“Avalon showed up at my house and told me I was no longer in the group,” he said. “And it was all because of who I am.”

“They came alone, but they had been speaking with management and record label before they visited my home,” Passons continued, adding that he was “blindsided” by the decision.

They attempted to salvage their working relationship by having Passons attend “conversion therapy” sessions, and he went along with it for about a month. But he knew he wasn’t going to magically turn straight and said as much. So the band moved on without him.

When Passons finally went public with all of this, 17 years after his ousting, he had finally come to terms with his sexual orientation and knew it was nothing to be ashamed about. But that was the culmination of a long journey. In fact, he only came out to his family earlier that year (in 2020).

“I’m a gay man and I’m glad to be,” he told [Jonah and the Whale podcast host Josh] Skinner. “At the time I was conflicted because I was involved in a culture where that was not accepted. I knew if I were honest, I would lose my career, I would lose many things — and I did end up losing all those things I feared I would.”

…

“I’m not ashamed of who I am. I’m not ashamed of my journey,” he said. “I just wish I had become the person that I am now sooner.”

The reason this story matters now is because Passons, former Avalon member Melissa Greene (whose tenure briefly overlapped with Passons’), and Country Music singer Ty Herndon have just re-released “Testify to Love” with an official music video on the way. This time, however, they say they’re taking the whole “love” thing seriously, instead of defining it in the Christian-y judgmental way like in the past.

This 2026 reimagining aims to honor the song’s core message while fostering a spirit of inclusion. Herndon noted that the new version reunites Passons with another former member of Avalon, Melissa Greene, to offer a performance that highlights faith and authenticity. “This song has always been about the power of love,” Herndon remarked, adding that the collaboration seeks to demonstrate how identity and faith can exist in harmony.

…

For Passons, who famously shared his story of being ousted from Avalon due to his LGBTQ identity, this recording is more than just a cover; it is a restoration. “For years, I sang these words while hiding who I truly was,” said Passons. “To record this now with Ty, Melissa, and this incredible group of artists—standing fully in my truth—is a full-circle moment I once thought impossible. It serves as a testimony that love does not exclude.”

In a sense, they’re giving fans of the original song a reason to love it again because many of them only knew it in the context of evangelical Christianity, with all the faults that go with it.

In a post on her website, Greene, who recently officiated Passons’ wedding to his same-sex partner, added that this recording had personal meaning for her because the song is “finally telling the truth.”

… We sang it night after night to arenas of people. And then Michael was kicked out of the group for being gay.

The song kept going. He didn’t.

I was a Christian then who believed what I’d been taught, that some love was acceptable and some wasn’t. I was on the wrong side of what happened to him. That’s the truth, and I’m not going to dress it up.

… now, we are singing this song again by our own choice, with even deeper conviction this time around.

What’s really incredible about this is reading the comments and discussions about this on YouTube and Facebook and Reddit threads. There are a hell of a lot of exvangelicals who listened to and loved this song when they were younger, only to deconstruct in the years since. Hearing this re-recording, for them, is like reclaiming a part of their past they thought they had lost.

There’s something beautiful about seeing all these people come to the same conclusion as the person who brought this song to life: Love, in the Christian subculture they belonged to, came with fine print. The people who mass-produced songs about grace, mercy, and compassion were simultaneously propping up institutions that are cruel and treat empathy as a “toxic” sin to be avoided. The music was uplifting but the theology was heartless. Passons experienced it first-hand while many of his fans came to realize it later.

So to be able to enjoy this song again gives them access to the better elements of their previous life. They may have avoided the music because it reminded them of everything they’ve spent years escaping. They no longer have to. They’re reclaiming something that evangelicalism never deserved to own in the first place. A song that once existed in a culture of exclusion is now being sung as an indictment of it.

Passons’ journey is also a reminder of how that brand of Christianity works in the real world. Pastors will go on and on about “biblical love,” but if you stray from the expected path at all, as he did, you’ll be treated as disposable. They will always protect the doctrine over the people.

Judging by the reactions online, though, plenty of people wounded by the same kinds of churches have been waiting a long time to hear songs like this in a better context. “Testify to Love (Michael’s Version)” won’t be the last re-recorded Christian song we hear. There’s a huge market for it.

Statement: FFRF denounces civil rights office’s new mission against ‘anti-Christian’ bias

Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a state/church watchdog that is also the largest association of North American freethinkers, have released the following statement:

“The Freedom From Religion Foundation denounces the dismaying recent announcement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that its civil rights office has been restructured to go after so-called ‘anti-Christian bias.’ It seems clear that the intent is to intimidate critics of Christian nationalism and the growing unification of conservative Christianity with our secular government.

“The department contradicts its alleged goal to ‘advance the protection of conscience rights’ by then saying it will ‘eradicate’ anti-Christian bias. Americans are free to believe or disbelieve in any religion, to advocate for or criticize any religious doctrines. Even if there were such a thing as ‘anti-Christian bias,’ Americans would be free to hold it. The law should go after actions, not beliefs.

“FFRF is also troubled to see that instead of upholding civil rights, particularly of racial minorities, the office has been tasked with addressing race-based discrimination ‘in a color-blind manner.’ We also find it disturbing that HHS charges its civil rights office with restoring  ‘biological truth,’ obviously a threat to transgender Americans, a threat mainly posed by religion. 

“True freedom of conscience hinges on a government that does not take sides over religious debates, that does not confer its blessings on religion over nonreligion, or on a particular religion over other religions, and that does not possess an ‘anti-freethinker’ bias. Most Americans support the separation between religion and government. FFRF represents more than 41,000 freethinking members, mainly atheists and agnostics, seeking to uphold the First Amendment. We also represent the views of nearly one-third of U.S. adults today who are religiously unaffiliated. FFRF will continue our peaceful, lawful work in defense of state/church separation, free speech and true religious freedom by exercising our First Amendment rights.”

The post Statement: FFRF denounces civil rights office’s new mission against ‘anti-Christian’ bias appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Delaware paper runs FFRF op-ed detailing anti-abortion and religion link

A leading community newspaper in Delaware has published a Freedom From Religion Foundation op-ed on religion’s centrality in the anti-abortion perspective.

FFRF Senior Policy Counsel Ryan Jayne opens his piece in the Cape Gazette (which covers the Cape region of Delaware) by detailing the benefits of Senate Bill 5, a bill that aims to protect the access of state residents to reproductive health care. 

“It would enshrine reproductive freedom in the Delaware Constitution, as many progressive states have done, and ensure that decisions about pregnancy remain where they belong: between patients and their doctors,” he writes. “In a post-Roe landscape where abortion rights have become fragile and uneven, state lawmakers need to provide new, more permanent protections for the right to bodily autonomy.”

Unfortunately, not everyone in Delaware is willing to support this common-sense measure due to faith trumping reason:

At a recent hearing on SB 5, an opponent warned lawmakers that any right to abortion must yield to “the law of Christ, which our constitution stands pale next to.” Another cited Scripture as governing authority, invoking Psalm 139 and Romans 13 to argue that the government should enforce their interpretation of divine will. And one opponent accused supporters of wanting to “enshrine abortion on the altar of worship and sacrifice to the devil,” even adding for good measure, “May God have mercy on your souls.”

This is not policymaking; this is sermonizing.

It is worth pausing on the specific texts being invoked. Romans 13 has a long and troubling history in American political life. Defenders of slavery used it to demand obedience to unjust laws. It was later invoked to justify segregation, was invoked in President Donald J. Trump’s first term to justify family separation, and was even cited earlier this year by House Speaker Mike Johnson to defend border policies against papal criticism. Appeals to that passage have consistently been used not to advance freedom, but to resist it.

Psalm 139, likewise, is not the benign, feel-good verse it is often presented as in political settings. The same psalm that speaks of being “fearfully and wonderfully made” also calls on believers to hold a “perfect hatred” for those who oppose God. It is telling that so many opponents turn to Psalm 139 to justify their “life begins at conception” dogma, since the Bible does not actually address abortion at all.

The good news is that lawmakers do not need to resolve these scriptural disputes, because they should never legislate based on their personal religious beliefs in the first place. To uphold their oath of office, lawmakers must respect the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom for everyone. That means if they can’t give a secular justification for something, they should not be legislating it.

The piece ends by emphasizing how government should aim to serve all people instead of bowing down to the religious beliefs of one specific group: “As this important constitutional amendment moves forward, it offers more than just protections for reproductive freedom. It offers a model for how legislators should approach difficult issues, not by quoting Scripture or appealing to divine authority, but by relying on evidence, respecting individual rights and recognizing that in a diverse society, the law belongs to all of us.”

You can read the full op-ed here.

This column is part of FFRF’s initiative to engage with pertinent national and state issues and spread the messages of freethought and nontheism to a broader audience.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with over 41,000 members across the country, including more than 100 members in Delaware. Its purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

The post Delaware paper runs FFRF op-ed detailing anti-abortion and religion link appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

FFRF announces 2026 essay competitions

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has announced its four 2026 essay competitions for freethinking students.

Each of these four contests has 10 top prizes: First place — $3,500; second place — $3,000; third place — $2,500; fourth place — $2,000; fifth place — $1,500; sixth place — $1,000; seventh place — $750; eighth place — $500; ninth place — $400; and 10th place — $300. FFRF also offers optional honorable mentions of $200.

The contests cater to students in different age/class ranges. Students may only enter one FFRF contest annually and may not re-enter a contest if they have previously won an award in that particular contest.

All essays are due no later than June 1. For more details on the contest requirements and to apply, go to: ffrf.org/studentessay.

William J. Schulz Memorial Essay Contest for College-bound High School Seniors

High school seniors graduating this spring/summer and attending college in the fall are asked to write on the topic of “My favorite freethought/humanist hero/ine.” (Gap year students who took time off after graduating high school before applying to attend college in the fall of 2026 should enter this contest.)

“The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments — of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue — are complete skeptics in religion.” — John Stuart Mill

Studies show that nonbelievers are still near the bottom rung of the ladder when it comes to social acceptance. Many Americans don’t realize how many activists or achievers they admire are not religious. To help educate them, write a personal essay about your favorite freethinker or humanist and what they did or are doing to improve or enrich our lives. It might be a nonreligious scientist, an artist or writer, a reformer — or an everyday person in your life who has made the world better and inspired you. Please briefly explain their influence or accomplishments and briefly document their nonreligious views. Tell us what they have meant to you as a humanist and nonbeliever. For quotes or citations, please document using links or footnotes.

Word limit: 350–500. Deadline: June 1.

Kenneth L. Proulx Memorial Essay Contest for Ongoing College Students

Currently enrolled college students (up to age 24; does not include college-bound high school seniors) may write on: “Why President Trump is wrong that ‘you just can’t have a great country if you don’t have religion.’”

Write a first-person essay that makes the case about why Trump is wrong to claim that “you just can’t have a great country if you don’t have religion.” Choose one or more such quotes by Trump (citing them in your essay) and show why his claims are fallacious. You may wish to marshall evidence or history that contradicts Trump’s claims, or address how his words threaten state/church separation and religious freedom. Save room to include something about your own reaction as a nonbeliever to such pronouncements by the president. Include links or footnotes for quotes or major citations.

The $1,000 prize in the ongoing college competition has been generously endowed by actor and FFRF Lifetime Member Mr. Madison Arnold. Madison, who is now 90, has given a $30,000 endowment as a living bequest, what he calls a “pre-quest.”
Word limit: 450–650. Deadline: June 1.

David Hudak Memorial Essay Contest for Students Who Are First-in-their-Family to Attend College
Students who will be first in their family to attend either a two- or four-year college or university and who are ages 17–21 (which includes college-bound high school seniors to currently enrolled college students), may write on the topic of: “Why white supremacy goes hand in hand with Christian nationalism.”

Write an essay about the inherent white racism in Christian nationalism. You may wish to write about it from a historic or a political perspective, but please be sure to include why it is a threat to our secular democracy and to you as an individual, or to your own community or other ethnic or racial minorities in the United States. Include something about your own experiences with or reactions to white Christian nationalism.

Word limit: 350–500. Deadline: June 1.

Cornelius Vander Broek Essay Contest for ‘Graduate/Older’ Students

Graduate students (through age 30) and “older” undergrads (ages 25–30) are asked to write about “Why the 250-year-old United States of America is not a Christian nation.”

Research and write an essay documenting why the U.S. government is not based on God or Christianity. Refute the claim by President Trump and others that the 250-year-old Declaration of Independence proves that our government is based on God. Include and refute a few other timely examples of legislators, public officials or other individuals promoting the Christian nation myth. Save space to include your own thoughts on why you find “Christian nation” propaganda and disinformation dangerous to our democracy and also how you feel about this as a nonbeliever. Include links or footnotes for quotes or major citations.

Word limit: 550–750. Deadline: June 1.

Additional prompts on the topics and contest rule requirements can be found at: ffrf.org/studentessay.

All eligible entrants will receive a digital year-long student membership in FFRF and non-winners also will be offered a book or other thank-you.

FFRF is appreciative of its members who make the effort to contact local high schools, colleges and universities to help publicize its competitions. You can email them this link: ffrf.org/studentessay.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org. 

The post FFRF announces 2026 essay competitions appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

A secretive Christian sect is pressuring members to purge their pets

This newsletter is free and goes out to over 24,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo or PayPal.

Subscribe now

A largely secretive religious sect has told members they need to get rid of all their pets, a move that is pressuring some members to euthanize or simply abandon their furry friends.

All of this is happening within the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, a faction of the “Exclusive Brethren,” that is known for having strict control over its members. The PBCC has about 54,000 members total, with just about all of them based in Australia, and was a model for the fictional Netflix show Unchosen about a woman who belongs to an isolated religious sect.

They’ve apparently had a No Pets rule in effect for decades, including an infamous pet purge in 1964, but it isn’t typically enforced. After a dog recently attacked someone close to the group’s leader, though, unnamed elders (it’s honestly unclear who these people are) decided to remind everyone that they shouldn’t have any pets in the home.

The directive, a transcript of which is circulating online, cites former group leaders like John S. Hales (JSH), James Harvey Symington (JHS), Bruce D. Hales (BDH), and James Taylor Jr. (JT Jr.) saying why dogs and cats shouldn’t be in the homes because they’re “unclean.” Pets have also been described as distractions from devotion.

Four-year-old child attacked by a dog, belonging to a brother while at the brother’s house for the evening meal, on Lord’s Day, 12th April.

He sustained significant facial injuries requiring surgery. The ownership of such an animal, let alone it being kept at a brother’s home, is clearly wrong. There are reports of some brethren having reverted to owning pets, including dogs and other animals, which practice has been clearly spoken against in ministry. The following references are examples, and there are many others in the ministry indexes which all brethren are encouraged to look up.

JT Jr., New Series, Volume 64, page 334

Your house is a clean place, though, but then it becomes a holy place if you have an assembly in it. That’s why you don’t have any dogs around.

JHS, volume 66, page 145.

Rats and mice out, cats too!

Well, they disposed of their dogs. And now what? Well, you acknowledge in the assembly that you were wrong to have such a creature hanging around.

JSH, new series, volume 127. Page 116. Regarding pets:

Thought they were finished with 30 years ago. Your house has got a pet in it. We couldn’t have a supper there, that’s all. See, the fellow raised it with Mr. Taylor about a pet, about a dog. Mr. Taylor says they’re dogs. Unclean. Get them out. But what that brother didn’t realize was it applied to cats.

B.D.H. May even apply to birds, mightn’t it?

Might even apply to birds, yes. These things have all been laid down in the statute. They’re all on record.

Every household should be freshly exercised to ensure the standard represented in the great men and their ministries is carried forward and maintained.

From the Universal Elderhood

The Australian publication The Age now says that directive is leading some members to get rid of their pets in the saddest possible ways. (You can read the full article here if that one’s paywalled.)

As one Melbourne family made plans to dump their cat four hours out of town so it “could never find its way back home”, others told this masthead they would defy the order. In New Zealand, a member shared pictures mourning her kitten, which multiple people in the church said she had been pressured into euthanising this month.
…

Another family said their elderly aunt had also come under repeated “priestly” pressure to get rid of her beloved companion dog. “We’re worried they’ll finally make her [do it] now, and she’ll be totally alone,” they said.

…

A Melbourne woman put down her cats three years ago when the edict was mentioned in passing at a meeting, according to three members. In NSW in the 2000s, an ex-member said Brethren asked farmers to shoot their dogs for them.

“Fear of getting caught flouting the rule means it’s kept secret,” said one member. “Though my father has always enjoyed shooting cats.”

Another woman recalled coming home from holidays as a child in the 1990s to find their litter of puppies missing. “We found out years later, they’d come and drowned them,” she said.

The directive also appears to apply to service dogs. One member told the outlet “If I’m asked to choose between my church and the dog, it’s going to be the dog.” So at least there’s a silver lining here.

It’s not like the PBCC is unique in this particular regard either. Warren Jeffs, the former leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) cult, once demanded members get rid of their pets too.

In response to the unwanted attention from this directive, the Brethren released a statement saying they definitely weren’t calling for members’ pets to be put to death.

But they’re also not not saying that.

Very few families in the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church would keep pets, as we generally avoid distractions from family, faith and God, such as television, radio, or pet ownership.

…

… This was not a ‘new directive’, but simply a reminder of a principle that was established some time ago.

The small number of church members who have pets may be minded to rehome them with a willing neighbour or colleague, or via working with their local animal shelter.

We are aware of untrue and distressing online commentary which has misconstrued this as members of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church being told to euthanise their pets.

The church would never condone cruelty to any living creature, and this position is being strongly reinforced to our congregation. We have the utmost respect for all of God’s creations.

If a member of our church ever was cruel to animals, we would want the matter to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.

So they don’t want anyone to euthanize their pets… but they do want you to get rid of those pets… If you don’t have someone willing to take those pets in, however, then do whatever you need to do as long as it’s not “cruel.” (*Wink*)

When The Age asked about the 1964 Pet Purge, the group’s leaders called it “untrue.” even though there’s documentation of that happening according to multiple news articles that were published around that time:

Members who were children at the time say they were fully aware of the rule and it traumatized them:

Back then, newspapers in Australia and overseas reported Brethren bought the gas ether to put their animals to sleep at home, when vets discovered the trend and refused to euthanise.

Some members told this masthead that other pets were killed by more brutal means — drowned, shot or clubbed — at times in front of children. At least three blind Brethren were “ordered to destroy” their guide dogs, though some refused and were instead ex-communicated.

More recently, and especially during the early COVID years, some members found companionship in pets and simply hid them from other sect members. Or they convinced themselves the rule applied to certain pets but not theirs, including service animals.

“But you never know which of the thousands of rules they’ll suddenly enforce so you’re forever on eggshells,” said one member. “A lot of us have pets now.”

The leaders were also asked why former leaders said repeatedly said members must “dispose of” their pets and why they said “The best dog is a dead dog.”

The church didn’t respond to that question.

Cheryl Bawtinheimer (née Hope) is the host of the Get a Life Podcast, which shines a light onto the PBCC and features a lot of former members, and she also serves as a sort of one-woman clearinghouse for insider information about the group.

In a conversation yesterday, she told me that members of the group are sometimes led to believe certain ironclad rules can still be bent, which is why members have pets despite the supposed ban. But because “goalposts are always moving” within the group, those rules can sometimes be made inflexible as a way to see who’s truly loyal.

When it involves getting rid of your pets, though, it may be a bridge too far for some. One current member told her “This might be the thing that ends it all,” referring to the sect itself. If members were looking for an exit before, this could be the last straw for them.

If that’s true, it raises some questions about why a religious leader would pull this particular trigger.

Here’s a theory: It’s the same reason cults like to isolate you from non-members. If you know there’s love and community and a calming presence to be found outside your religious bubble, they have one less weapon to use against you. That’s what pets are for so many people. They love you no matter what. They are an antidote to loneliness. They reduce your anxiety. It’s what religious leaders like to tell you only they can provide. In other words, pets break the façade religious cults try to create. No wonder they’re against them. Authoritarians always want you to believe you need them for everything, including comfort.

In that sense, the pets may be collateral damage for what the sect really wants: control. It’s the same logic high-control religious groups use to sever friendships, isolate families, discourage higher education, and monitor your media consumption. Every independent source of joy or identity competes with the group’s monopoly on your self-worth. Even if a pet seems relatively trivial in the grand scheme of things, that small source of unconditional love can still undermine your obedience to the overlords.

The people who are refusing to comply—or threatening to leave—are doing something truly courageous by choosing empathy over dogma. It’s the right move, though. If your religion tells you to destroy or avoid something you really love, especially when it’s harming nobody, the correct response is to abandon the religion. You deserve better than whatever they’re offering.

July 2026 [Date TBD] – Sam Grover to Speak at Ozarks Chapter Event on Arkansas Lawsuits and Christian Nationalism (Bentonville, Ark.)

The Ozarks Chapter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation will host FFRF Staff Attorney Sam Grover for a public presentation in Bentonville, Arkansas. The event location and date are currently to be determined. Please check this page for updates.

Grover will give a 60-minute presentation discussing two ongoing Arkansas lawsuits involving church/state separation, as well as the broader rise of Christian Nationalism and its implications for constitutional rights and secular government.

As a staff attorney for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Grover works to uphold the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and regularly addresses issues involving religious entanglement in public institutions and government.

The event is free and open to the public. No RSVP is required. Attendance will be in person only, and no virtual option will be available.

Additional event details, including the final venue location and start time, will be announced by the Ozarks Chapter of FFRF at a later date. Bookmark this page to get that information easily. To read more about the Ozark’s chapter of FFRF, contact Chapter President Chris Sweeny at ozarksffrf@gmail.com.

The post July 2026 [Date TBD] – Sam Grover to Speak at Ozarks Chapter Event on Arkansas Lawsuits and Christian Nationalism (Bentonville, Ark.) appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

FFRF supports AZ students protesting school-sponsored prayer

Students at El Capitan High School in Colorado City, Ariz., are protesting school-sponsored prayer that district officials are still scheduling in the graduation ceremony despite student objections and constitutional dictates.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has told the Colorado City Unified School District to immediately remove prayer from the school’s June 3 graduation ceremony after the school received complaints from graduating seniors who say administrators are attempting to force religion into what should be a celebration of students’ achievements. According to the student complaint received by FFRF, El Capitan High School has long included official invocations and benedictions at graduation ceremonies, with students selected in advance to lead the audience in prayer. This year’s graduation program was set to feature scheduled prayers led by two designated students despite clear Supreme Court precedent ruling such practices unconstitutional.

After student objections, district officials reportedly altered the program so that the prayer would occur before the ceremony officially begins and described participation as “optional.” But the change misses the point.

“El Capitan High School’s custom and practice of including school-sponsored prayers at graduation directly violates students’ First Amendment rights,” FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence writes. “The school cannot avoid a constitutional violation by assigning students to lead prayers, moving the prayer to the top of the ceremony, or proclaiming that the prayer is no longer mandatory.” 

As the school board itself has noted, the ceremony is under the school’s control. A public school cannot constitutionally implement religious worship as part of a school activity. 

High school graduation is a once-in-a-lifetime event that students spend over a decade working toward. As FFRF’s student-complainant explained, the school forcing prayer on graduating students has caused the students “frustration” instead of allowing them to focus on their achievements. Including prayer at graduation puts many students and families in the unconscionable and unconstitutional position of choosing between exiting or foregoing the ceremony or else violating their conscience. 

Plus, having prayer at graduation ceremonies and other school-sponsored events needlessly marginalizes students and families who are nonreligious or members of minority faiths. As many as 29  percent of Americans are non-Christian, including the almost 30 percent that are nonreligious. (Arizona even has slightly higher than average numbers of religiously unaffiliated adults at 31 percent.) More than half of Generation Z members (those born after 1996) are non-Christian, including 43 percent who are nonreligious.

“Students deserve to celebrate their achievements that came from hard work — not be forced to show obeisance to someone else’s religion,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. “We expect this rogue school district to stop violating the constitutional rights of its students by canceling these prayers immediately.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with over 41,000 members and several chapters across the country, including more than 1,000 members and a chapter in Arizona. Its purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

The post FFRF supports AZ students protesting school-sponsored prayer appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

June 8, 2026 – ‘Great American Freethought Songbook’ George and Ira Gershwin – (Madison, Wis. and live-streamed)

Photo by Chris Line

Celebrate the music, life & views of GEORGE and IRA GERSHWIN.

Monday, June 8, 2026 ( RSVP by Thursday, June 4 )
Charlie Brooks Auditorium
Freethought Hall, Madison, Wis.

6:15 – 6:45 p.m.   Refreshments served: Wine, non-alcoholic beverages, cookies.

6:45 – 6:50   Please be seated. (Concert is being video-recorded and live-streamed.)

7 – 8   Enjoy the performance with Dan Barker & Darcie Johnston.

RSVP by Thursday, June 4. Invite your family, friends and colleagues!

Watch the performance live by going to FFRF’s YouTube channel or Facebook page. It can also be viewed on Freethought TV, FFRF’s new streaming service for smart televisions and mobile devices. For installation instructions, go to freethoughttv.ffrf.org on your smart tv or cellphone.

Free street parking after 6 p.m. Close to Overture Center parking ramp, West Mifflin.

Mark your calendar for future concert dates:

Monday, July 13 — Lyricist Yip Harburg.

Monday, August 24 — Songwriter Cole Porter.

Monday, September 21 — Composers Richard & Mary Rodgers.

Monday, November 9 — Finale. Medley including Dorothy Fields, Jay Gorney, Burton Lane, Tom Lehrer, Frank Loesser, Thelonious Monk, Stephen Sondheim and Charles Strouse.

The post June 8, 2026 – ‘Great American Freethought Songbook’ George and Ira Gershwin – (Madison, Wis. and live-streamed) appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

EMBARRASSING: The Chairs Were Empty

Small-d democratic movements like ours aim to fill every seat, but White Christian Nationalists don’t need to. For their anti-democratic agenda to succeed, they only have to normalize their narrative that our country belongs more to some people than to others.

The post EMBARRASSING: The Chairs Were Empty appeared first on American Atheists.

A board game forum rejected ads for “Possess Me, Satan” over fears of demonic oppression

This newsletter is free and goes out to over 24,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo or PayPal.

Subscribe now

An advertisement for a new board game with a Satanic theme was rejected by one of the largest board game forums in the world because it might trigger people “suffering from demonic oppression.”

Possess Me, Satan is a “Mafia”-like deduction game from the company Falling Whale Games where players have to figure out who’s secretly Satan and who got possessed. Perform an exorcism on the wrong person, though, and “they will die.” Fun! Along the way, other players may serve as chaos agents and investigators, making it more difficult to figure out who’s in control and who’s being controlled.

Within just a few hours of launching on the crowdfunding website Gamefound on Tuesday, the $10,000 goal was reached—with 30 days left to spare. But before that happened, the creators attempted to purchase advertising on the popular website BoardGameGeek, where potential supporters could learn more about it.

Falling Whale Games confirmed to me that these were among the ads they submitted for approval:

They didn’t get a response at first, which was unusual given the two groups’ working history, so they followed up over a week later to see if there was any problem.

This time they heard back from the site’s Advertising Manager… who told them he personally rejected the ads because they offended his religious sensibilities.

… To be completely transparent, I’ve been sitting on this one and praying about what to do in this instance. As a follower of Jesus, I routinely help people suffering from demonic oppression, and more occasionally, possession, and it’s absolutely devastating the damage he does to peoples’ lives. It’s sometimes beyond what would even dare be depicted in a horror film. The amazing thing is that I get to see Jesus completely heal folks of even the most severe effects (we’ve walked with one lady who was diagnosed with 32 distinct personalities as a result of horrific occultic abuse, and she eventually was one whole, complete individual, healed by Jesus, with no fragments or need of all her psychological meds), but it doesn’t change the terrible reality behind the theme that this game is depicting.

So, I just can’t in good conscience approve this one; given what l’ve seen firsthand, the thought of displaying this subject matter makes me sick to my stomach. I don’t begrudge you personally, as many people just plain don’t understand the reality of it, but I’d strongly urge you to consider these things. IMO, the responsible thing to do would be to pull the entire project, as there are *way* more people that suffer this than you could possibly imagine, putting on a good face (usually enabled by dissociation), but suffering terribly behind the scenes.

I know this response was more than you bargained for, but I wanted to be 100% honest about where I’m coming from, rather than just ignoring the request.
Even though you may not be on the same page, I appreciate your understanding.

Uhhh… what the hell is that all about?

Let’s set aside the person’s Satanic Panic delusions for a moment. Why is this person’s religious beliefs interfering with a pretty standard business transaction on behalf of an ostensibly secular company? (It may be a private business but it’s still an insane thing for a representative to say.) And have you seen other games?! One of the most popular in recent memory involves exploding kittens, but that’s not an endorsement of animal cruelty.

This is a game. It’s fictional. It’s fun. It’s not promoting Satan any more than The Satanic Temple. The rejection was based on a complete misunderstanding of everything.

Falling Whale Games responded with some predictable shock (and, I might add, remarkable calm):

Thank you for getting back to us.

It’s very disappointing to hear you are denying us service based on religion. Is this the decision of Board Game Geek as a company or of just you personally?

Is there an advertising policy rule we are breaking?

There is currently ads on Board Game Geek for a game called “All True Believers” which is themed to the occult so it seems strange that our game is being singled out.

We are definitely not going to pull the project due to individual people not liking the theme. It is simply not for those people.

The response this time was even more infuriating because the Advertising Manager compared their theme to one featuring a “sexual predator” in that it’s not “friendly” and it would be “extremely triggering.”

Keep in mind it’s not over religion, but reality. It’s the same reason I would say a game would be in very poor taste if it featured being a sexual predator, or something that would directly trigger someone that’s been harmed by the subject matter. It’s about keeping BGG welcoming to everyone, and since I’m privy to this subject matter, I know firsthand that this is not friendly content, and incredibly triggering, put in front of some of the population that visits BGG.

Similar to site moderation, there are of course judgement calls to be made when it comes to displaying ads on the site. If it were just my personal preference, “All True Believers” wouldn’t be approved either, but I have to factor in if something being displayed is going to be overtly triggering. In that game, it’s a bit less obvious from the title, whereas you went for the shock value. Of course, that’s a business decision on your part, but it also means it’s not responsible of me to put it in front of a diverse community of gamers.

On Reddit, where Falling Whale Games posted screenshots from this exchange, an administrator of the BoardGameGeek forum chimed in to say the representative shouldn’t have said those things… but didn’t admit the decision was wrong or that it would be reversed.

Our Advertising Manager should not have presented his personal beliefs as representing the company. We are making sure he understands that this was an inappropriate and unprofessional response.

Yes, it was inappropriate. Yes, it was unprofessional. But what are you doing about it?! I don’t even care if the person is fired; I just want to know that this will never happen again.

When someone asked similar questions, the same admin insisted the issue was the religious nature of the reply and not the rejection of the ads.

The ads in question would not have been approved regardless. This info comes from a different member of the team who reviewed the ads in question after we became aware of this situation.

As far as I can tell this was a one-off incident. If any other advertisers feel like they may have been affected then I encourage them to email [us] so we can review those cases.

Why wouldn’t the ads have been approved? No one seemed to know. But that response from the admin was soon deleted.

On BoardGameGeek’s own forums, however, OctavianX added that the issue was that they try to avoid ads that are “edgy or provocative.” But you can see the ads for yourself near the top of this post. They’re hardly provocative. The same could be said about the name of the game. It’s pretty damn straightforward, and the game mechanics themselves are family-friendly. You have to wonder if an ad for a game celebrating LGBTQ people would also be rejected just because of the subject matter.

It wasn’t hard for people to find the Advertising Manager’s social media pages—I’m purposely not sharing them here—where his past posts promoted the idea that gay people could turn straight and that homosexuality is caused by “childhood trauma” and “generational curses.” He’s also said transgender people can’t be helped because “you can’t counsel a demon,” but they can be fixed by finding Jesus. Somehow.

This was no longer just about some rejected ads. This was rapidly becoming a bigger question of whether board game enthusiasts even wanted to support a website specifically meant for them. Several commenters online said they were canceling their paid memberships to BoardGameGeek.

Beyond that, though, everyone with a vested interest in this community just wanted to know what the site’s policies were.

Was it secretly a pro-Christian gaming forum?

What were the rules about advertising?

Would customers have a way of appealing bad decisions?

And how was management going to handle this incident?

Late last night, they got an answer to that last question. The company announced that the Advertising Manager had been fired:

Due to a situation in which BGG’s Advertising Manager responded inappropriately in a business email to a designer, I have decided to let him go. His response does not reflect or represent our company or the way we conduct business.

That’s the right move. But as of this writing, we still haven’t heard if those original ads would be accepted. Falling Whale Games told me they “haven’t decided yet if we want to use their services again.” If BoardGameGeek reaches out to them, perhaps they’ll reconsider, but given the success of their crowdfunding, they appear to be doing just fine without the support of the forum itself.

However this plays out, it’s a reminder of what happens when people with religious delusions are placed in positions where their beliefs aren’t supposed to be front and center. They’re often incapable of making rational decisions. In this case, the person perceived an enjoyable party game about Satan as equivalent to genuine human trauma and decided to put up a barrier between the designers and his company’s members.

We don’t know how many other game designers had similar experiences because of this one person’s bigotry. But BoardGameGeek’s initial response only made the whole thing worse. Instead of immediately admitting the rejection itself was absurd, they tried to narrow the controversy to the tone of the email. As if everything would have been fine if the person just didn’t bring his religion into it. But the underlying problem still remains unresolved!

By firing that employee, they’ve stopped the bleeding, but the scar remains. A board game forum shouldn’t become a battlefield for culture-war paranoia. Hell, it’s always frustrating when your subculture gets invaded by people who don’t respect the creativity within it.

The only healthy response—and the one BoardGameGeek ought to take—is to reject that mentality outright and make clear that these shared spaces will not be controlled by the most easily offended fundamentalist in the room.

(Thanks to Annabel for the tip)