Map Shows States Where People Most Opposed to Christian Prayer in Schools
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A new map shows which states have the most people opposed to Christian prayer in schools.
Why It Matters
There is a cultural and legal battle about prayer in schools, and other public forums, going on across the United States.
For example, Texas lawmakers are considering requiring public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms meanwhile, the Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling that would not allow Oklahoma to launch the country's first religious (Catholic) public charter school.
There are ongoing debates about prayer at school sporting events and time for prayer during the school day.
What To Know
The states that say they oppose allowing public school teachers to lead classes in prayers that refer to Jesus are Washington state, Oregon, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut. Washington, D.C. is also part of that list, according to a new analysis from the Pew Research Center.
The study, released on Monday, is based on data from Pew's religious landscape survey conducted between July 17, 2023 and March 4, 2024.
Conversely, the states that are in favor are North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.
In these states, there is no significant difference between those who are for or against: Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware and Maine.
In total, just over half of U.S. adults say they are in favor of prayer in schools, made up of 27 percent who are strongly in favor and 26 percent who say they just favor it.
Meanwhile, 46 percent oppose prayer in schools, made up of 22 percent who say they strongly oppose it and 24 percent who say they just oppose it.
Advocates of prayer in school argue that it instils American values and that students should be allowed to practice their faith.
Opponents argue against prayer in schools because it amounts to government endorsement of one religion, violating the First Amendment's separation of church and state.
What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump said during his first term 2020: "You have the right to pray, and that's a very important and powerful right. There's nothing more important than that, I would say."
Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in May: "We will continue our efforts to protect inclusive public education. We call on this nation to recommit to church-state separation before this safeguard of democracy and freedom is further attacked."
What Happens Next
There are multiple legal battles ongoing across the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Dog Kept Covering One Power Outlet, Then Owner Realized He Was Warning Them
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A pet parent who noticed the dog obsessing over a specific power outlet took to Reddit for answers and quickly realized the canine might've saved the day. The owner's dog, Draco, started taking a special interest in one of the power outlets in the hallway. He would pull any item he could find—pillows, blankets, toys—to the outlet, trying to cover the opening. What concerned the owner was that Draco only did it to this specific outlet. Seeking advice, the owner posted an example of this strange habit to a subreddit channel r/DogAdvice earlier this month. The post explained that Draco keeps trying to cover this specific outlet with whatever he can find, with the hope that someone would have an explanation. In the clip the owner shared, Draco used his nose to pull the blanket up toward the outlet. But, of course, the blanket never stayed up, forcing him to continue this motion. The dog was determined to protect the house from whatever could be happening behind the wall. Screenshots from a June 14 Reddit post of a dog trying to cover an electrical outlet with a blanket. Screenshots from a June 14 Reddit post of a dog trying to cover an electrical outlet with a blanket. ThinkPension2161/Reddit People immediately took to the comment section of the Reddit post, which reached over 17,000 upvotes, offering their advice and suggestions. The comments gave the owner a realization; this could be a signal from Draco. Turns out, Redditors were right. The owner told Newsweek via Reddit messenger that the outlet wiring turned out to be "bad." "It's an old house which makes sense," the owner said. "My landlord just had an electrician basically cut it out of the circuit. That circuit went to three different rooms, so leaving that outlet dead was the easiest solution for now." One Reddit user asked if the dog stopped pawing at the outlet once it was turned off. The owner replied: "He's completely ignoring it like the other outlets in my house." Another added: "Dogs are amazing at sensing things we can't. I'd be getting in an electrician to check and maybe calling Ghostbusters too." A third person commented: "Good job mate, and give doggo lots of treats if he/she did (or did not) save the day!" The owner shared in a follow-up post that the electrical issue has not come up again since. And for Draco's excellent warning and saving the house, he was rewarded. He picked out new toys and treats. Part of the post reads: "I am so thankful for all the kind comments and helpful advice. I'm so glad that I was able to get this issue fixed before anything worse happened..." Do you have funny and adorable videos or pictures of your pet you want to share? Send them to life@ with some details about your best friend, and they could appear in our Pet of the Week lineup.
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Don't buy fancy butter to make great pie. Here's why
When it comes to the fat in pie dough, there are no kings. In terms of its ingredients, pie dough couldn't be more straightforward: For the most part, it's flour, butter and water. With so few ingredients, it begs the question: Does the quality of the butter make a difference? Typical American butter — brands such as Land O'Lakes, Cabot, Challenge and supermarket private labels — contains 80% butterfat. Many of the brands also offer extra-creamy lines. These 'European-style' butters have a higher butterfat content. Kerrygold from Ireland has a butterfat content of 82% to 83%, and Plugra, which is made in the U.S., is 82% butterfat. Ironically, European-style butters with the highest percentage of fat are from small American creameries: Straus Family Creamery in Marin County makes a European-style butter with 85% butterfat, and Vermont Creamery has a whopping 86%. Some sources say that European-style, higher-butterfat butter makes a difference in baked goods, but speaking strictly for pie dough right now, how could it? At least in any noticeable way. What isn't butterfat in butter — that other 14% to 20% — is water (with an insignificant amount of milk solids, and in the case of salted butter, salt). And you add water to pie dough anyway. (In my pie crust, I substitute heavy cream for some of the water, a 'trick' I learned from pastry chef Nancy Silverton, who does so because, she says, in addition to hydrating the dough, the cream brings with it fat and flavor.) The water in butter evaporates in the baking process, creating steam pockets in the dough, which is what forms the layers and translates into flakiness. So it wouldn't make sense that less water (fewer steam pockets, fewer layers) would be superior. I did a test of Land O'Lakes vs. Kerrygold. The one thing that Kerrygold added to the dough was color. Kerrygold has a bright, rich yellow hue that comes from the grass the cows graze on, and that makes for a buttery-colored dough. But that color didn't translate to the baked crust. I baked the dough off into little crackers. The Land O'Lakes crackers were light and flaky. As hopeful as I was about the Kerrygold, what with that beautiful buttery-colored dough, the crackers were flat. Barely a flaky layer in sight. Of course, both were delicious. Butter is butter. There's no question that butter, any butter, does reign supreme when it comes to contributing flavor to pie dough. For flakiness, there are still those who swear that shortening makes for the flakiest pie crust, which, more widely known by the brand name Crisco, is a solid fat made from primarily soybean and palm oils. Crisco is so popular in baking that, previously offered only in small tubs, the product is now sold in sticks, so it can be used in a recipe without making a mess stuffing it into a measuring cup. Lard (rendered pork fat) — specifically 'leaf lard,' which comes from the fat around the kidney and loin of the pig — is also said to make for a flaky pie crust. And when I worked at a bakery in a billionaire enclave in the Hamptons, we made the dough with — gasp! — margarine. To my knowledge, nobody complained, or even noticed. The crust was light and flaky and reasonably flavorful. The fruit was juicy and jammy and delicious. It was summertime in one of the most beautiful corners of the earth, and our customers, it would seem, were just happy to have pie. So what do I suggest? Use regular butter. If you want to experiment with Crisco or lard, use that in combination with butter. And if you are entering a pie contest that you really want to win, experiment with combinations of Crisco or lard and European butter. Yes, I might use Kerrygold for that small possibility that it might make a smidgen of difference in the flavor or the color. And if I were baking something that didn't involve piles of stewed fruit, like biscuits, I might splurge. But I guess it would depend on who I was making them for; for the kings and queens in my life, then yes. Absolutely. Ray Garcia, chef of the now-closed beloved modern Mexican restaurant Broken Spanish, calls for European-style 83% butterfat in these biscuits. The butter is frozen and grated, a trick that allows you to mix the butter in with the flour while keeping it as cold as possible. That way the butter melts in the oven, creating those coveted light, flaky the recipe. Cooking time: 1 hour. Makes about 12 biscuits. This pie has the best of both worlds: a crispy, flaky bottom crust and a crunchy crumble topping. This topping is unusual, as it has an egg in it, so it's like crunchy cookie dough dropped in clumps on the pie. For the filling, I cook the sugar first and then add the blackberries, to give them a head start. If I start with raw blackberries, I find that even after over an hour of baking, they don't break down and still look like whole blackberries. I add the cornstarch here too, to make sure the fruit filling sets. The pie is baked on the lowest rack to ensure a browned, crisp bottom crust. If you have a pizza stone, use the recipe. Cooking time: 2 hours. Makes 1 9-inch round pie. From the L.A. Times' long-running Culinary S.O.S. column, this recipe comes courtesy of Koreatown's historic Cuban restaurant El Colmao. Writer Astrid Kayembe highlighted the restaurant's popular ropa vieja dish in her guide to the city's best Caribbean spots, but the signature pollo al colmao translates the classic stewed chicken dish through a family the recipe. Cooking time: 1 hour 40 minutes. Makes 1 9-by-13-inch pie.
Atlantic
4 hours ago
- Atlantic
What Are Emoji?
In the arenas of ancient Rome, the thumbs-up was a matter of life and death. So scholars have extrapolated from the elusive history of ancient gestures. The fates of defeated gladiators were determined by an emperor or another official, who might heed the wishes of the crowd: Thumbs hidden within closed fists were votes for mercy; thumbs-ups were votes for death. Today, the 👍, now flipped into a gesture of approval, is a tool of vague efficiency. Deployed as an emoji—as a hand summoned from a keyboard, suspended between literalism and language—it says 'okay' and declines to say more. But lately the crowds of the internet have found new ways to channel the old dramas. On the matter of the 👍, the arbiters of our own arena—internet-savvy young adults—have rendered their verdict: The 👍 is no longer definitive. It is no longer, for that matter, necessarily positive. 'Gen Z Has Canceled the Thumbs-Up Emoji Because It's 'Hostile,' ' one headline put it, citing data gathered in surveys and in the wild. Particularly as a reply to messages that contain words, Zoomers say, the 👍 is dismissive, disrespectful, even 'super rude.' It's a digital mumble, a surly if you say so, a sure but screw you. It is passive aggression, conveyed with pictographic clarity yet wrapped in plausible deniability. News of this emoji revisionism spread for the same reason so many of Gen Z's pronouncements do: Young adults, speaking internet with native-language ease, have an air of authority. But the news also spread because it was a warning of sorts about online communication at large. The double-edged 👍 meant that you could mean 'yes' or 'sounds great' while saying 'no,' or even 🖕. In online conversations, you can think you've said one thing and be read as having said another. Some have argued that the internet is creating a new kind of Babel. Here, in a cheerfully cartoonish form, were intimations of just that. Different groups of internet users—in this case, generations—can speak the same language and a different one. From the May 2022 issue: Jonathan Haidt on why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid Emoji (derived from the Japanese for picture and written character) were meant to bring humanity to conversations conducted across digital distances—to introduce a warm splash of color and expressiveness into a realm of text. Emoji are common property: Anyone can use them. Any group can define them in its own quirky way. But the resulting ambiguity can fuel tensions as well. Emoji have given rise to new codes of bigotry (🐸👌🥛) that allow their users the same plausible deniability that the 👍 does. Emoji can be cute, and they can also permit hatred to hide in plain sight. Have emoji enhanced communication, or abetted chaos? If emoji belong to everyone and no one, who gets to say what the default meaning might be? Emoji are less a language than they are 'insurgents within language,' Keith Houston writes in Face With Tears of Joy: A Natural History of Emoji. As his lively exploration of the form usefully puts it, they are the 'lingua franca' of the web, and the route they have traveled is more complicated than you might think. Their antecedents are ancient (Egyptian hieroglyphs, Chinese characters, Mesoamerican pictograms), though the journey from their modern birthplace (Japan circa the turn of the millennium) to their current ubiquity has been quick. That doesn't mean it has been smooth. Houston is contagiously enthusiastic about 'vibrant, vital emoji.' 🤗 He is also alert to the mixed blessings of the icons' versatility, their 'many-splendored entanglement with the written word.' Emoji, he writes, are 'a colorful and symbiotic virus whose symptoms we have only haltingly understood.' 🦠 Ambiguity, for emoji, is both a feature and a bug. One symptom of their elasticity is that no one can agree, exactly, on how to categorize them. Ever since their emergence, they have stirred debate among linguists. On their status as a language—implicitly recognized in 2015, when The Oxford English Dictionary named 😂 as its 'Word of the Year'—the consensus is 🤔: They are language-like without being language. (Houston suggests that 'body language' is a helpful way to think about them.) They're symbol-like, yet unlike most symbols, they constantly change in meaning and number. Can they function as punctuation (❣️🤡😬🔥)? Maybe they're better viewed as tactfully ambiguous conversation-enders—useful, as the writer Katy Waldman put it in 2016, for 'magicking us out of interpersonal jams.' Exiting his own definitional jam, Houston turns to the rich story of how emoji came to be. The ones most familiar today are typically attributed to the Japanese engineer Shigetaka Kurita; in 1999, a series of images that he designed were shared among users of Japan's main mobile carrier (teenage girls were the envisioned customers). Even the origin story of emoji, though, is muddied by questions about who really made them what they are. There are other contenders for 'first emoji' honors, Houston points out—so many, he writes, that 'it is no longer possible to imagine that emoji were ever 'invented' in the strictest sense of the word.' Instead, they evolved as so many technologies do: through a combination of accident and intention. In emoji, Japan's singular aesthetic traditions—manga and anime, in particular—achieved a form of universality. Emoji made use of manpu, the genre tropes commonly understood to convey amusement, anxiety, and other emotions. Exploding in popularity as digital chatting caught on—an ascent that accelerated when Apple, Google, and their fellow behemoths became emoji adopters—the pictograms acknowledged no national boundaries. In 2011, a year after emoji officially came under the supervision of a nonprofit called the Unicode Consortium, Apple introduced an emoji keyboard to its U.S.-marketed iPhones, bringing hearts and party poppers and sun-yellow faces to text messages throughout the land. The website Emojipedia, aiming to provide an exhaustive catalog of emoji, arrived in 2013. In 2014, a campaign got under way on the digital-petition site 'The Taco Emoji Needs to Happen,' it announced. The petition received more than 30,000 signatures, and the 🌮 was born. Taco Bell had been the catalyst. Two years later, an article titled 'A Beginner's Guide to Sexting' outed another 🌮 meaning, one its corporate sponsor likely never anticipated (vagina). Emoji, the not-quite-a-language language, were becoming part of the world's linguistic—and commercial—infrastructure, importing some of the unruliness of IRL interaction into virtual spaces. People used emoji to accentuate (👏🎉😂). They used emoji to hedge (😑🤔🌤️). They used emoji to joke (😜). They used emoji to flirt (😍😉). Emoji were pictures that could extend people's voices, visual icons that could help convey intended tone. They said nothing precisely, and that allowed them to express a lot: enthusiasm, sarcasm, anger, humor. They followed the same broad arc that the internet did; having originated as quirky novelties, they were becoming utilities. By the mid-2010s, the 'staid old Unicode,' as Houston comes to call the Consortium, had discovered the headaches accompanying 'emoji fever.' The organization, launched in 1991, was composed of a rotating group of engineers, linguists, and typographers charged with establishing coding consistency across the internet's static characters (letters, numbers, and the like); its goal was to enable global communication among disparate computers. Now it found itself overseeing dynamic characters as the public clamor for more emoji mounted. The Consortium was the gateway to new emoji: It invited the public to suggest additional icons. But its technologists were gatekeepers, too. They reviewed the applications, assessing the level of demand. They were the ones who decided which images to add—and which to deny. (Durex's campaign for a condom emoji fell short.) The annual unveiling of their decisions became, in some quarters (🤓), a much-anticipated event. Each new 'emoji season' brought fresh collections of icons to users' devices. But each also stirred reminders of the icons that weren't there. Faced with feedback from users frustrated by icon selection that could seem capricious and unfair, the arbiters did their best, Houston suggests, to gauge popular support for new candidates. But lapses in the lexicon were obvious, as a mere sampling reveals. Early on, 'professions' were depicted as masculine by default. 'Couple' was a man and a woman. The woman's shoe was a ruby-red heel. Representations of food reflected the pictograms' Japanese origins and U.S. tech dominance, but not their worldwide story. In the quest for more choices—and in response to users' campaigns—the Consortium added, among many other emoji, an array of food items. (They were not always culturally authentic: In an attempted nod to China's culinary traditions, a takeout box joined the lexicon.) In 2015, the group introduced five 'realistic' skin-tone options for humanlike emoji figures. The update brought unintended consequences. Lined up next to other hues, the sunny yellow originally meant to scan as race-neutral (in the lineage of the classic smiley face, Lego mini-figures, and the Simpsons) now read, to some, as racist. Light skin tones, intended to reflect users' skin color, evoked, Houston notes, a similar reaction: Some saw the choice of those light-hued symbols as a 'white power' gesture. Complexity, when emoji are involved, will always find its way back. The Consortium's Emoji Subcommittee—a 'crack team of emoji wranglers,' in Houston's words—had its hands full. Gender updating in particular proved challenging. Early Unicode guidance on depicting emoji people had emphasized, but not required, striving for gender neutrality. To move beyond stereotypes, should equity or androgyny lead the way? Same-sex couples and same-sex parents were soon included. Women were liberated, as one peeved op-ed writer had urged, from 'a smattering of tired, beauty-centric' emoji career options: 16 professions, available in male and female versions, were added. To Houston's surprise, the 2017 gender-focused emoji season met with no political or press furor—perhaps owing to public 'emoji fatigue,' he speculates. (Androgyny lived on that year, for the most part, as fantasy—through the magical figures issued in the new batch 🧙🧚🧛🧜🧞.) How much control, at this point, the subcommittee can exert over emoji denotation and connotation isn't clear. Unicode's emoji now coexist with platform-specific icons that users can customize for themselves (think: stickers, Bitmoji, Memoji). The latest iterations, such as Apple's Genmoji, use artificial intelligence to create ever more adaptable pictograms. Meanwhile, Unicode's emoji are becoming only more protean: The 💀 has expanded from a mark of disapproval to a sign of amusement (death via laughter). The 😭 might suggest laughter too now, in addition to its sobs. When words have oppositional meanings like this, context typically helps clarify which one applies—thanks to accompanying text, you can probably tell whether the 🍑 you just received is a fruit, a body part, or a call for impeachment. The 👍 and other emoji similarly used as stand-alone replies are part of a different class: They bring ambiguity without resolution. They bring a whiff of Babel. But myths have their own ambiguities. Although the Babel story conjures the arrival of a dystopia—a people perpetually lost in translation—it's also a creation myth: an ancient attempt to explain why people with so much in common are divided by their languages. Understandably, we tend to focus on the ending of the Babel tale, but it begins with humans in community. Only later does language divide them. For most of human history, communication barriers have made us illegible to one another. Emoji float, merrily (mostly), over the barriers. And their ambiguity is essential to their buoyancy. Emoji, as images, can never be tethered to one meaning. Even if 'emoji season' ceases to yield new crops, the icons that exist will keep evolving. They will keep challenging us to evolve with them. The namesake of Houston's book, the 'face with tears of joy,' has long been the world's most popular emoji. It has also been, according to recent reports, the subject of another Gen Z pronouncement: The 😂 is cringe. What it communicates, above all, is the hopeless unhipness of its sender. I use it anyway, mostly out of habit but also because, to me, joyful beats cool every time. And my 😂 are in good company. Each day, around the planet, billions of 😂 ping across screens. Their usage might decline in the future. Their primary meaning might change. For now, though, they are what we have. For now, because of them, we can laugh together across the distance.
