Azhar Majeed on ‘America Prays,’ Christian Nationalism, and Defending Secular Democracy

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28

Azhar Majeed is the Director of Government Affairs at the Center for Inquiry (CFI), where he leads lobbying, policy strategy, and advocacy to defend secular government, science-based policy, and human rights. With a legal background and years of experience in public policy, Majeed works at the intersection of law, religion, and state, focusing on challenges to church–state separation, religious privilege in public institutions, and threats to reproductive freedom. He represents CFI in legislative battles across the United States, coordinates with allied organizations, and frequently speaks on the dangers of Christian nationalism and the importance of protecting secular democracy.

In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Majeed about President Trump’s “America Prays” initiative and its implications for secularism in the United States. Majeed situates the initiative within the broader Christian nationalist agenda, noting legal, cultural, and institutional risks. He highlights CFI’s advocacy against Ten Commandments laws, school chaplain bills, and efforts to inject biblical teaching into public curricula. The discussion also explores reproductive rights as a core church–state issue, the role of allies from secular and religious communities, and the urgent need for vigilance, litigation, and coalition-building.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Excellent. Today, we are here with Azhar Majeed, Director of Government Affairs at the Center for Inquiry. We are discussing President Trump’s “America Prays” initiative, announced at the Museum of the Bible on September 8, 2025, and framed as part of the run-up to the United States’ 250th birthday. The White House materials and coverage describe a call for Americans to pray one hour per week, often in groups of ten or more. This coincides with the general back-to-school period in the U.S. From a governmental and institutional perspective, what are your organizational thoughts so far?

Azhar Majeed: My initial thought is that this is consistent with what President Trump and his administration have been signalling: an agenda closely aligned with Christian nationalism. This announcement is one more example of that broader push.

It is troubling for several reasons and potentially harmful in multiple ways. When I saw the announcement and the White House-hosted event at the Museum of the Bible, it underscored the themes they have been advancing.

Jacobsen: Side note: how would you characterize the Museum of the Bible’s role here—symbolically or otherwise?

Majeed: Holding a White House event there is highly symbolic and indicative of the administration’s priorities. They could have staged it at the White House or another federal venue; placing it at the Museum of the Bible amplifies the message.

Jacobsen: As you know, we strongly support secularism—the state remaining neutral on religion. The administration also said the Department of Education will issue new guidance about prayer in public schools. What would constitutionally compliant guidance look like?

Majeed: A key point: students already have the right to engage in personal, voluntary prayer in public schools, provided it is not disruptive and not school-sponsored. That is a long-standing First Amendment doctrine, and federal guidance has repeatedly clarified this. Any new federal guidance should accurately restate these limits and avoid endorsing school-sponsored prayer.

What concerns me is not the protection of private student prayer—which is settled—but moves that push beyond those limits toward school-sanctioned prayer or allow teachers/administrators to impose their beliefs effectively. That would cross the constitutional line.

Jacobsen: And this is part of a broader Christian nationalist agenda. Some are simply supporters who cheer religious moves into the public arena, while others are consciously implementing that agenda. School prayer bills, Bible-based curricula, Ten Commandments mandates—some of these have already been struck down, such as the Louisiana Ten Commandments law, which you would know better than I would. What is CFI’s litigation and lobbying posture across this range of secular fronts?

Majeed: There is a lot to unpack there. I can first speak to our lobbying efforts, since I head up CFI’s Office of Public Policy as Director of Government Affairs. My direct involvement is lobbying against these bills and state initiatives.

You correctly noted that the Louisiana Ten Commandments law was invalidated in federal court. Our litigation arm continues to pursue challenges to Ten Commandments mandates and similar laws. However, that is just one piece. In addition, there are school chaplain bills, which would allow public schools to hire religious chaplains in student service roles such as guidance counselors or social workers. You also have school prayer bills, which push far beyond what First Amendment law allows in terms of school-sponsored prayer. There is a wide range of theocratic legislation being advanced at the state level.

Jacobsen: This is not a black-and-white issue. There are allies, including many religious people who are appalled by these efforts, whether because they see one interpretation of Christianity being privileged over another, or because they recognize the imposition of one religion over others. Moreover, of course, nonreligious Americans are denied equal standing altogether. Who are the allies in this fight, and how are they helping with defensive efforts?

Majeed: I would give a twofold answer. First, there are many secular organizations like CFI engaged in this struggle: the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), American Atheists, the American Humanist Association, and both national and state-level chapters of the ACLU. We at CFI are proud to stand alongside these allies.

Second, there are policymakers and lawmakers at the state level who are doing admirable work standing up against this wave of theocratic legislation. One good example is James Talarico, a legislator in Texas, who has consistently spoken out against these bills. What makes his stance powerful is that he is open about being a devout Christian. He emphasizes that while his faith is important to him, advancing Christianity in public schools and imposing religious beliefs on a captive audience of students is not acceptable. That kind of messaging resonates strongly and underscores the harm these bills can cause.

Jacobsen: CFI recently filed written testimony supporting California AB67, a bill to strengthen enforcement of reproductive rights. For context, Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022 by the Dobbs decision. We now live in a post-Roe, Dobbs decision world. Where do reproductive rights defence and church–state separation reinforce each other within CFI’s overall governmental affairs strategy, in your view?

Majeed: To me, reproductive rights—protecting the freedom to make decisions for oneself, to exercise bodily autonomy—are very much a matter of church–state separation. That is because the bans on abortion, bans on medicated abortion, and other restrictions we have seen are driven by the religious right, pushed by Christian nationalists. These laws amount to the imposition of religious dogma upon others.

The basis for much of this legislation is explicitly religious and theocratic. So, opposing those efforts and protecting people’s right to reproductive choice is both a church–state separation issue and a science issue. For advocates of science and public health, these rights are essential. When you see measures that attempt to roll back decades of progress, it becomes incumbent upon organizations like CFI to fight back.

Jacobsen: It should also be noted that many of the rollbacks on reproductive rights rest on the claim that life begins at conception. That is a religious position rooted in Catholic theology, though echoed in some other denominations. This makes reproductive rights a key church–state separation issue as well.

All right—let us turn to schools. Guardrails, policies, staff training, parent communications: What should districts adopt to uphold neutrality while respecting individual rights in a society that values individual freedom?

Majeed: The short answer is: follow the law. For decades, First Amendment doctrine has provided consistent guidance on what students’ rights are in public schools, as well as the rights of teachers. Teachers do have their own rights, but they do not have the right to impose narrow religious views on a captive audience of impressionable students.

We already see that happening in some cases, and now state legislatures are codifying it and pushing the boundaries further. That is inherently dangerous. If you are a school administrator or district leader, you should start by consulting legal experts, but the foundation is simply following the law.

For example, the First Amendment allows students to pray silently in school. That right is not taken away. However, it does not allow school-sanctioned prayer or Bible study in public classrooms. In a pluralistic secular democracy, teachers cannot impose their religious views on impressionable young students.

So if you are a school administrator, it is your duty to maintain a firm stance of neutrality when it comes to religion. You want to avoid government entanglement with matters of faith and the private beliefs of students and teachers. Moreover, that is precisely why these state-level bills pose such a significant danger.

Jacobsen: We are only—depending on whether you count from January, November, or December—about nine months into the second Trump administration. They have certainly come out firing on all cylinders. What would signal success in terms of secular advocacy within the next nine months or so?

Majeed: That is a difficult question to answer. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I will do my best to provide them. First, it should not be surprising that they have come out aggressively. They essentially told us what the playbook would be—we all saw Project 2025 and its contents. Much of this was laid out before January 2025.

In terms of what success would look like, I would start at the state level. CFI aims to push back against as many theocratic bills as possible in state legislatures. There are many states and numerous harmful bills, so we can only do so much. However, I think we have done a good job prioritizing—identifying the worst, most unconstitutional proposals, and choosing where to fight.

In another nine or eighteen months, I hope to see CFI, along with our allies, defeat many more of these attempts, as there will undoubtedly be many more.

At the federal level, there is also plenty of work to do—both defending church–state separation and protecting science. The real question is whether we can limit the damage and mitigate the harm by presenting a strong, united front against this assault on secular democracy.

Finally, part of the answer lies in litigation. When these laws pass, it becomes essential for CFI and allied organizations to challenge them in court and seek victories through litigation.

Jacobsen: What other advocacy items should be mentioned that I have not covered—things I might miss as someone not plugged in 24/7 like full-time staff or dedicated volunteers?

Majeed: One dangerous element that deserves more attention is the push to inject Christianity into public school curricula. It has not received as much scrutiny as, say, the Ten Commandments bills.

Jacobsen: You do not mean Christianity taught as part of a world religions class, where students learn what Christians believe in various forms, but rather classrooms being used to endorse Christianity?

Majeed: Correct, and let me clarify. This is not “let us teach world religions—here is Buddhism, here is Hinduism, here is Christianity, here is Islam, and so on.” These are efforts to infuse Christian teachings and biblical lessons into public school curricula.

The most prominent examples have taken place in Texas and Oklahoma. In Texas, there is what is called the Bluebonnet Curriculum. It infuses classes like social studies and language arts with biblical content and Christian teachings.

We have seen similar efforts in Oklahoma over the past few years. The State Department of Education, led by Ryan Walters—a well-known Christian nationalist—has pushed public school districts to adopt biblical teachings and Bible study. They have even used funding threats, essentially telling districts they could lose state money if they do not comply with this religious mandate.

That leaves educators caught in a challenging position: either lose vital funding or knowingly violate their students’ constitutional rights. These are harmful developments, and I highlight them because they have not received as much attention as the more inflammatory pieces of legislation, even though they are just as dangerous.

Jacobsen: Azhar, very lovely to meet you. Thank you very much for your expertise today. Go team!

Majeed: Thanks very much. I was happy to speak with you today. I should add that I thought your questions were excellent—you have clearly done your homework and know the material well. I appreciate your questions because they covered much significant ground. There is no shortage of issues at both the state and national levels, but I enjoyed the conversation. Thank you for your time.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.