Many Americans believe the Supreme Court rulings on Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)—landmark cases banning prayer and Bible reading from public schools—effectively removed all forms of religious activity during educational hours.
As a result of these decisions, and the incessant drumming of “separation of church and state,” mainstream society now considers it unconstitutional to read Scripture or bow one’s head on government property. Every generation since 1963 has gone along with this diabolical rhetoric that blatantly violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech…”
Truly, the progressive left succeeded in its efforts to (morally) overthrow the United States.
At issue, in 1962, was a nondenominational prayer recited alongside the Pledge of Allegiance in K-12 schools:
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”
These 22 words pose no threat to anyone’s sincerely held beliefs. Although prayer was a standard part of every school day before 1962, students and staff members were not mandated to participate in the invocation. Nevertheless, anti-God activists have always deemed public prayer—that is, calling upon a higher power than government—an act that goes against the First Amendment. So, under the guise of nondiscrimination, several state laws were amended to abolish religious activities in public schools and bar educators from sharing their faith.
Don’t misunderstand what’s really at play. The false “church and state” narrative as well as the prohibition of Scripture and prayer are all aimed at one religion: Christianity. The progressive left wasn’t hellbent on expelling every god from mainstream society—they specifically intended to eliminate the God of the Bible (namely Jesus Christ) and silence His followers. Once God and Christianity were declared unlawful on school grounds, an alternative moral/religious code came into effect.
In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watson—just one year before God and prayer were banned from public education—the Supreme Court asserted that “secular humanism” (a form of atheism) was a religion fully protected by the First Amendment. If you will, the religion of unbelief is now considered to be legally and morally on par with Christianity. Yet only the former is allowed in public schools.
Of course, parents don’t recognize that their children are absorbing secular humanism because the doctrine is masked by minimal education requirements. Secular humanism is bright red lipstick on a filthy pig. If your child’s K-12 school requires a class or an assignment in the following subject areas, they’ve likely been indoctrinated with secular humanist dogma:
Evolutionary Theory—secular Creation Story
Social Studies—secular civil code (falsely teaches America is a democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic founded on Judeo-Christian principles)
Social Emotional Learning—secular moral code (falsely teaches restorative justice)
God may not be permitted on school grounds, but the religion of secular humanism is alive and well.
In his 2007 book “Separation of Church and State: What the Founders Meant,” David Barton wrote:
“[F]ollowing the 1962-1963 court-ordered removal of religious principles from students, teenage pregnancies immediately soared over 700 percent, with the United States recording the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world. Similarly, sexual activity among fifteen year olds skyrocketed, and sexually transmitted diseases among students ascended to previously unrecorded levels. In fact, virtually every moral measurement kept by federal cabinet-level agencies reflects the same statistical pattern: the removal of religious principles from the public sphere was accompanied by a corresponding decline in public morality.
Furthermore, consider the fact that suicide is one of the top five leading causes of death among children aged 12 to 19. Homicide among 15 to 29 year olds makes up 40% of the total number of homicides worldwide each year. There’s not enough time to discuss the increase in school mass shooting incidents over the last two decades.
Every case of teen violence and sexual deviance may not be directly linked to secular humanistic education. However, after nearly 18 years of being told you evolved from nothing, you’re a “clump of cells” with no inherent worth or purpose beyond the present moment—what reaction should we realistically expect other than rage and rebellion?
Parents choose public schools for a number of reasons, ranging from convenience to affordability to sports. And while there’s no shame in keeping certain traditions, it’s clear that America’s public education system is on the verge of total moral collapse. The emergence of “trans” activists coupled with the lack of basic social/survival skills among youths is evident. Ignorance is willful at this point.
According to Proverbs 22:6, God holds parents primarily responsible for educating their children. If we don’t want them indoctrinated with a secular humanistic worldview—one that says gender is fluid, America is systemically racist, and God is dead—then it’s time to abandon public education. This is one sure way to conserve family values, strengthen our nation’s moral foundation, and secure the freedom of future generations.
Is DEI a good thing? Is being Hispanic an accomplishment? We must challenge these prevailing narratives and advocate for a more empowering discourse.
In today’s America, the conversation around racism has been hijacked, not by those who genuinely seek equality, but by a group that benefits from keeping minorities in a constant state of victimhood. As a proud Hispanic, I’ve seen how this narrative has been weaponized, not to uplift us but to keep us boxed into stereotypes that do more harm than good. These narratives harm us and undermine the progress toward a truly equal society.
We hear it constantly: “Speak up; you are a victim!” But have we ever stopped to ask who is looking down on us? Who is genuinely being racist? It’s not the hardworking Americans who see us as equals.
The Danger of the Victimhood Mentality
For too long, certain groups have pushed the idea that minorities, especially Hispanics, are perpetual victims who need special protection. This is evident in how some media outlets portray us, in the rhetoric of specific political figures, and in the policies that are supposed to help us but often end up reinforcing this narrative. But here’s the truth: this narrative doesn’t empower us; it chains us and, quite frankly, is abusive. When we accept the label of victim, we surrender our power. We allow others to dictate our worth instead of defining it through our achievements.
This is precisely what they want to control. They want minorities to feel oppressed so they can appear as “saviors or heroes” and expand government power under the premise of helping us. But we don’t need them; they perpetuate issues with no solutions. We don’t need pity. We need equal opportunity, which doesn’t divide us but unites us in a more inclusive America.
DEI policies could unintentionally perpetuate the victimhood narrative. These policies appear to be designed under the pretense of helping minorities, but they could end up hurting us the most. Take affirmative action and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, for example. These policies don’t level the playing field; they manipulate it. They make it seem like our success is only possible through handouts rather than hard work. They make companies prioritize skin color over competence.
And let’s not forget the devastating impact of government policies that fail to address fundamental issues affecting our community, like crime, border security, and drug trafficking. The very same people who cry about protecting minorities are the ones who have allowed cartels to flood our neighborhoods with drugs, endangering our youth. Policies that weaken law enforcement or ignore the crisis at our border don’t help Hispanics; they harm us.
When the real, actual cases of racism are reported, those are not taken seriously because of this abuse of making everything racist.
A dangerous byproduct of this divisive ideology is the rise of reverse racism. For years, we were told that discrimination is wrong, yet now, some openly advocate for hostility toward white Americans. They justify it by saying it’s “retribution” for past injustices. But racism, no matter who the target is, remains wrong.
How can we ever expect to move forward as a united nation if we keep fueling resentment and division? Instead of blaming one group for the struggles of another, we should recognize that success comes from hard work, responsibility, and perseverance, values that transcend race.
We must have a path forward for Hispanics not to feel like victims. We are entrepreneurs, professionals, veterans, business owners, and leaders. Our value doesn’t come from DEI policies, handouts, or political talking points; it comes from our contributions to this country. It’s time we reject the labels imposed on us and demand recognition for who we are: Americans who have earned our place through merit, not privilege.
Let’s stop allowing politicians and activists to define our identity for us. Let’s stand up against the dangerous rhetoric that keeps minorities trapped in victimhood. And most importantly, let’s ensure that future generations of Hispanics grow up knowing that their potential is limitless, not because of government assistance, but because of their hard work and determination. It’s time to change the narrative.
The Arizona Legislature is considering a constitutional amendment that would restrict preferential treatment and discrimination based on race or ethnicity in public education, government spending, and hiring practices.
House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 2042, sponsored by Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-LD 29), would reinforce existing constitutional protections by prohibiting state agencies, schools, and employers from favoring or disadvantaging individuals based on race or ethnicity. If approved by the Legislature, the measure will be placed on the next general election ballot for voter approval.
HCR 2042 expands Arizona’s existing anti-discrimination policies by banning the use of race or ethnicity as a factor in hiring, promotions, admissions, or contracting decisions in public institutions. It also would prevent state-funded institutions from compelling employees, students, or contractors to support race-based policies as a condition of employment or academic advancement.
In addition, HCR 2042 would prohibit public funding for university offices (like DEI offices) or initiatives that promote preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity, restrict diversity training that endorses race-based privilege, intersectionality, or the idea that neutral policies perpetuate racial injustice, and ensure that disciplinary policies in public schools and workplaces do not treat individuals differently based on race or ethnicity.
The bill allows exemptions for academic research, student organizations, legal compliance, and mental or physical health services provided by licensed professionals.
Proponents of the bill say that preferential treatment—whether through race-based hiring, admissions, or funding allocations—undermines fairness and meritocracy. Equal treatment under the law is a fundamental principle that should apply to all individuals, regardless of background, and race-based policies can create resentment and devalue achievements by making qualifications appear tied to identity rather than merit.
Supporters of the legislation also argue that neutral, colorblind policies are the best way to ensure fairness in education, employment, and government programs. They say that government should not fund initiatives that favor one racial or ethnic group over another, as this can lead to unintended discrimination.
HCR 2042 was approved by the House Government Committee in a 4-3 vote and now awaits further legislative debate. If passed, Arizona voters will decide on the measure in the next statewide election.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The Fountain Hills Town Council voted to adopt a resolution banning all DEI on Tuesday. Councilman Allen Skillicorn, who introduced the measure, noted that the policy was authored with the assistance of the Goldwater Institute.
“I talk a lot about how Fountain Hills is open for business,” Skillicorn said. “Tonight, I get to join Amazon, Disney, Ford, Harley-Davidson, Lowe’s, McDonald’s, Molson Coors, Pepsi, and Toyota in rejecting divisive DEI policies. In the public sector, the Supreme Court ruled that most forms of affirmative action were unconstitutional in 2023. Our town joins the Federal Government, Department of Education, and many states banning divisive DEI.”
Skillicorn noted, “Included in the language is also a ban against using invented gender identity pronouns in town email signatures.”
The measure was debated in an explosive 45-minute segment of the town council meeting which saw frequent sparring between Councilwomen Peggy McMahon and Brenda Kalivianakis, and Councilman Skillicorn as well as Vice Mayor Hannah Toth.
Kalivianakis, speaking on the resolution, accused the Councilman Skillicorn of “mischief,” saying, “I’m reticent to because ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.’ I could use those same adages, ‘problem solution seeking a problem,’ but I do see mischief in this too and and maybe for the sponsor of the bill.”
Responding to concerns that the resolution could preclude the town from membership in various civic organizations, Skillicorn clarified, “If those organizations that we belong to are in violation of and have active divisive Dei policies, it appears that yes, our town does have a problem with divisive DEI policies.”
Councilmembers Gayle Earle, Rick Watts, and Allen Skillicorn voted in favor of the ban along with Vice Mayor Hannah Toth and Mayor Gerry Friedel. Councilwoman Peggy McMahon voted against and Councilwoman Brenda Kalivianakis abstained.
Watch the Town Council Meeting Section on the DEI Policy:
One Arizona town recently pledged cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
On Tuesday, the town of Fountain Hills passed a resolution (6-1) pledging cooperation with ICE’s mass deportation efforts under the Trump administration.
The resolution cited the existence of over 647,000 illegal immigrants with pending charges or convictions for violent crimes within the U.S. as justification for the town’s support.
“[T]he Town remains steadfast in its commitment to protecting the safety and well-being of its residents, particularly those most vulnerable to criminal activities such as human trafficking and drug distribution,” stated the resolution. “[T]he Town will continue to comply with all applicable federal and state laws, recognizing that there can be conflicts between federal and state laws.”
The resolution also committed the town to not becoming a sanctuary town as others in the state have done, and pledged to seek assistance from the U.S. Attorney General’s office to indemnify the town and employees for any assistance or cooperation provided to federal immigration authorities.
According to a press release also issued on Tuesday, Fountain Hills Town Council member Allen Skillicorn drafted and introduced the resolution. Skillicorn cited his past experience as an Illinois state lawmaker as the impetus for presenting the policy.
“Not long ago I was a state legislator. I had to solve problems, both present and in the future,” Skillicorn said. “My commitment is to our town and keeping our town safe from crime.”
Fountain Hills, passed a resolution of cooperation with ICE to enforce Federal immigration law. “My commitment is to our town and to keep our town safe!”
— Skillicorn for Arizona🌵 🇺🇸 (@allenskillicorn) March 5, 2025
The resolution didn’t pass unanimously.
Councilwoman Peggy McMahon questioned whether Skillicorn was accusing town council members, staff, and community members of impeding law enforcement. McMahon further alleged the resolution would encourage racial profiling.
“Are you saying they’re not doing their job in enforcing the laws? Are you implying the town and the sheriffs are not committed to cooperating with enforcing laws to protect the health, the welfare, and the safety of our community?” asked McMahon. “Accordingly, the resolution to me is moot and legally unenforceable. So I don’t even know why we’re talking about it.”
McMahon also argued that illegal immigrants were responsible for just a small fraction of crimes committed in their town and the state as a whole.
Councilman Brenda Kalivianakis, who voted for the resolution, asked why the resolution was necessary. Kalivianakis criticized the resolution as another “time-sink” designed to further other council members’ political careers and not the town’s priorities.
“This seems like a solution looking for a problem. This isn’t a problem we have in this community. It seems like a case of just virtue signaling. Here I am, I’m going to lead the way on DEI and all these nationally divisive issues and then I’m going to appear in some small newspaper tomorrow and be called a hero,” said Kalivianakis. “Why are we talking about things that don’t matter?”
During the same meeting on Tuesday, the town council passed a resolution (5-2) banning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and the usage of gender identity-based pronouns.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
