The Christian study center movement is poised to offer something much more than some Christian window-dressing to the intellectual life of the university; it can offer instead a picture of what the university was meant to be: a community of shared learning that receives the gifts of God and reflects them back into the world.

This fall, I had the honor of speaking at the launch of the new South Carolina Study Center in Columbia, S.C. Occupying a charming historic white house across the street from the University of South Carolina, the SCSC is just the latest representative of a bold new movement that is challenging Christians to rethink the nature and purpose of higher education. The term “study center” may evoke images of Francis Schaeffer’s L’Abri and its various offshoots, retreat spaces offering a space for reading, rest, reflection, and mentorship for Christians and seekers alike. But the Christian study center movement, though inspired by Francis Schaeffer’s compelling blend of faith and scholarship, has forged a model for engagement at the very center of modern intellectual and cultural life—the public research university.
Since the formation of the first Christian study center at the University of Virginia in 1975, the Consortium of Christian Study Centers has grown to include 38 member institutions. Initially, most did little more than offer a thoughtful Christian add-on or occasional antidote to whatever was going on in the neighboring university: a C.S. Lewis reading group….
Read More
Related Posts:

Book Criticisms: Du Mez will entertain only those arguments that accept her framework and dismiss any theological appeals, because Evangelicalism is not defined by theology, no matter what Evangelicals themselves claim. Once the reader realizes that this is what Du Mez is up to, he can make sense of how it is that she arrives at many of her conclusions. She simply ignores the Evangelical’s own claims about what drives him, and decides to analyze Evangelicalism through the lens of cynicism she has constructed. Du Mez’s slanders are as casual as they are broad.

Evangelicalism has lost its way.
It’s a popular message on the Left in the post-Trump era. The Left never liked Evangelicals to begin with – too conservative, too anti-gay, too public in their objections to the prevailing secular creeds they would say – but Trump, whom Evangelicals supported in droves, gave their critics a new charge to level at them: hypocrisy. These high and mighty moralizers, the Left said, were willing to abandon any principle in pursuit of political power. They had no right to preach to others values they would not practice.
The Evangelical writer David French has been in the thick of this conversation writing on the intersection of evangelical faith, politics, and corruption with such essays as: “Why Christians Bond With Corrupt Leaders,” “A Nation of Christians Is Not Necessarily a Christian Nation,” and “Deconstructing White Evangelical Politics.”
“‘Deconstruction’ is a hot topic in elite Evangelicalism,” French says. “It’s a word with many meanings. At its best it can represent an honest, critical re-examination of not just your personal faith, but also the theology and behavior of your faith community. We should be in a constant process of interrogating our own beliefs and actions in light of the person and example of Jesus Christ. White Evangelical politics are due for deconstruction.”
History, or something else?
Enter Kristin Kobes Du Mez, whose book, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation, is cited by French as “a compelling and challenging argument.” Du Mez provides a historic account of “[t]he path that ends with John Wayne” – contraposed to Christ – “as an icon of Christianity,” of “rugged, heroic masculinity embodied by cowboys, soldiers, and warriors to point the way forward.” It is the account of a church that has commodified Christianity, intertwined faith and right-wing politics, and “invoked a sense of peril in order to offer fearful followers their own brand of truth and protection” and stoke “[e]vangelical militancy.” It is a church that has forgotten Christ.
We could concede, for sake of argument, some aspects of her account. The various moral failures of major figures in Evangelicalism are well documented. We could also dispute other claims, as various reviewers have here, here, and here. However, so as not to be duplicative of the work of others, we will focus on the foundational problems of her theoretical framework.
The facts recounted in any historical work are important, but so are the uses to which those facts are put, the tools used to analyze those facts, and the conclusions that are drawn from those facts. Accurate details can be both cherry-picked and omitted, and either of those can allow for the creation of a false narrative or leave the reader with a false impression. In short, what we want to know is whether or not the tools and analysis Du Mez employs in the curation of her historical record are sound, and whether or not the conclusions that she draws from that curated record are justified. That is, we want to know whether or not the house of Jesus and John Wayne is built on a solid intellectual foundation, and my contention is that it is not.
Jesus and John Wayne is built on the shifting sand of postmodernism. No Christian interested in her thesis can ignore the implications of her methodology. To embrace her work is to embrace the postmodern deconstruction of Christianity.
To understand Jesus and John Wayne, it is best to see it as a sort of answer to the question: “Why did Evangelical Christians, with their very conservative Christian moral ethics, come to be the backbone of support behind Donald Trump, a man who is infamous for his rude language and known for his (admitted) marital infidelities?” This is the question that Du Mez seeks to answer in her work.
Du Mez attempts to determine what exactly it is that conservative Evangelicals believe about masculinity, and how that relates to their view of who in society should be in positions of power. She claims to uncover the deeper sociological and historical reasons Evangelicals came to hold these views about gender and power. As she does that, Du Mez documents scandal upon scandal among the leadership in Evangelical circles. She places special attention on scandals involving Evangelical leaders at the forefront of fighting “the culture war.” Du Mez pulls up many examples of people who were caught up in financial scandals, sex scandals, abuse scandals, and various cover ups meant to hide all these scandals from public view.
All this she thinks adds up to the conclusions that Evangelicalism is racist, sexist, homophobic, and that Evangelicalism as it stands needs to be “undone.”
Du Mez readily admits that her work is a work of deconstruction, and that she is influenced by the work of postmodern philosopher Michael Foucault.[1] Much of Jesus and John Wayne is a Foucauldian Archeology of Evangelical discourse around masculinity, and a Foucauldian genealogy of how that discourse developed.
If we follow postmodern methods to their ultimate conclusions, they dissolve every belief system and every philosophical framework to which they are applied, including postmodernism itself. A philosophy or method that dissolves everything proves nothing, save for the fact that the philosophy or the method itself is flawed. So it is with postmodernism.
Evangelical Delusions
On her own account, Du Mez is attempting to show that “constructs like ‘Christian worldview’ might reflect the interests of those who fashion them, even at times distorting biblical teaching.” The problem is, she never does a proper analysis of whether or not the doctrines, ideas, and beliefs she criticizes in this way are true.
Rarely does Du Mez argue that the theology of Evangelicals is wrong on the merits. She does not show that they have made an interpretive mistake, nor does she argue, prove, demonstrate, or otherwise show that the tenets of American Evangelicalism are not warranted. Instead, she asserts that they are defined by cultural and political commitments and then draws negative inferences on that basis alone. Du Mez is attempting to tear down the edifice of Evangelical theology by appealing to elements in the sociological situation in which Evangelical theological claims and justifications were formed. On Du Mez’s telling, Evangelicals’ concerns about family were really about sex and power, their views of biblical innerancy were really a proxy for fights about gender, and their opposition to abortion was really about trying to push back against the gains made by feminism. Arguments of this type abound in Jesus and John Wayne.
The method relies on a fallacy that has been rebutted by John Searle, namely:
If we have justifications for our beliefs, and if the justifications meet rational criteria, then the fact that there are all sorts of elements in our social situation that incline us to believe one thing rather than another may be of historical or psychological interest but it is really quite beside the point of the justifications and of the truth or falsity of the original claim.[2]
This is the heart of the problem with Du Mez’s book. Her account of Evangelicals – they are animated by wrong motives, hidden agendas, unfair biases, and power-seeking;, they’re complicit in a litany of terrible things – is not an argument. Du Mez is attempting to tear down the edifice of Evangelical theology by casting elements of the sociological situation in which Evangelical theological claims and justifications were formed in the least charitable possible light. But, as Searle points out, whether or not our sociological situation inclines us toward one belief or another is not relevant to whether or not those beliefs are actually true.
The entire danger here is that we end up with a way of analyzing and understanding theology that is utterly unmoored from the truth. It doesn’t even matter whether Du Mez perceives herself to be operating in such a deconstructionist fashion: Her method sets aside the difficult work of determining truth and replaces it with the cheap substitute of speculating about people’s perceived interests and motives. Searle describes the danger of critique unmoored by the search for truth:
What are the results of deconstruction supposed to be? Characteristically the deconstructionist does not attempt to prove or refute, to establish or confirm, and he is certainly not seeking the truth. On the contrary, this whole family of concepts is part of the logocentrism he wants to overcome; rather he seeks to undermine, or call in question, or overcome, or breach, or disclose complicities.[3]
In this way Du Mez thinks that she can “see through” the theological claims of Evangelicals, and as such she can set them aside. In a passage in the concluding section of Jesus and John Wayne Du Mez makes this clear:
Despite evangelicals’ frequent claims that the Bible is the source of their social and political commitments, evangelicalism must be seen as a cultural and political movement rather than as a community defined chiefly by its theology. Evangelical views on any given issue are facets of this larger cultural identity, and no number of Bible verses will dislodge the greater truths at the heart of it.[4]
Read More

The problem gets worse. Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a form of political Oneism, because it denies individual distinction. The concept of individual rights is a political form of Twoism, that is, it affirms that every individual, made in the image of God with rights from the Creator, is different and distinct and deserves the right of free speech. Since there is no longer common civic ground, various forms of Twoism must simply be annihilated. CRT will make it happen.

We rarely pay attention to one of the most shocking warnings Jesus ever gave: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea (Mark 9:14). This is the gentle Jesus, meek and mild, speaking to everyone, addressing everyone as whoever.
One of the great signs of degradation in our present culture is the attack progressivism has made and is making on our children. The Puritans in Massachusetts in 1647 “ordered that every township in this jurisdiction after the Lord hath increased them to fifty households shall forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read. . . .” via the teaching of the Bible.[1] Our Puritan forebears doubtless sought to put into practice the biblical exhortation: “These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up” (Deuteronomy 6:6–7).
Three hundred years later, John Dewey (1859–1952), the leading force in public education in the early twentieth century, rejected his Puritan Christian up-bringing, converted to atheism and proposed for education a philosophy of human-centered progressivism and socialism.[2] This man, who made American secular education what it is today, signed on to the 1933 Humanist Manifesto, which, in its very first point, states: “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”[3] A century later, this affirmation—“self-existing and not created”— lies at the very heart of what is now taught to our children in the public schools. It defines what is socially and morally acceptable, namely the denial and rejection of God the Creator, which leads, in turn, to unbridled adultery, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, trans-sexualism and the loss of individual identity, human worth, and civil rights.
Through public education, Christians are deeply influenced by secular culture. To be sure, home-schooling and Christian day schools play a role in protecting our believing children, but not all Christian parents can afford such schooling. Ninety percent of Americans who consider themselves Christians send their children to public schools.[4] The results are inevitable. Sixty percent of twenty-somethings who were churched as teens are now disengaged from the church,[5] doubtless the result of the secularism taught in public schools. In a certain sense, with the invasive power of the internet and social media, there is no sure way to keep young children from hearing and being influenced by the ideology of contemporary progressivism. As Christian parents and grandparents, we must at least try to protect and educate our progeny by facing and discussing these issues head on with our children and grandchildren.
Our children are caused to sin in three areas today: in theology, sexuality, and sociology.
Theology 
Our schools deny God as Creator not just by outright affirmations of secularism, but also by the “scientific” worship of matter as self-creating, eternal and evolving. Dewey, an evolutionist, is celebrated in today’s public-school science classrooms. In the case Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), the U.S. courts barred intelligent design from the nation’s classrooms, declaring it to be unconstitutional. If God is just an ancient myth and science is an infallible source for understanding the universe, then little wonder our children, as they mature, find the Christian faith unbelievable. Those who lead them deliberately down that path are certainly “without excuse” (Rom 1:20). But we and our children must also resist unbelief and take seriously, both at home and at church, the responsibility to instruct our children carefully and thoroughly in God’s Word and to set an example of purity, love, faith, and Holy-Spirit power as we live with and pray for them until they move into full adulthood. Part of our responsibility is to help them analyze and answer the propositions they receive from outside sources.
Our Christian children (perhaps especially those in public schools) need to be taught some of the latest discoveries in science. Though secular sources are never ultimate, it can be helpful for our children to realize that certain leaders of scientific naturalism are now convinced by the powerful logic of theism and intelligent design. “The heavens declare the glory of God, day after day they pour forth speech” (Ps 19). The work of Stephen C. Meyer needs to be made known more widely. I recommend his book Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (Harper Row, 2021) and his lecture on You Tube, “God and the Origin of the Universe.”
Unlike the Creator, matter is not eternal because the natural universe has a beginning. Erwin Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe via the red shift from a single beginning, shows this. Hubble’s findings convinced even Albert Einstein. Darwin did not explain how life originated but tried to imagine how new forms of life evolved from previous forms of life. But if the universe and matter have a beginning, then the real mystery of life—the origin of the universe—is not solved by evolution.
What has caused the undermining of naturalism in our time? The discovery in the 50s of the information-bearing properties of the genetic code expressed in DNA, is a mystery the materialist understanding of life cannot explain. Stephen Meyer states: “Just as the Rosetta Stone points to the activity of an ancient scribe, and the software in a computer program points to a programmer, so the digital code within the DNA molecule suggests the activity of a designing mind in the origin of life.”[6] The origin is an intelligent personal mind.
One non-Christian Yale micro-biologist, Professor David Gelerntner, faced with the sophistication and complexity of DNA, wrestled with Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt, which holds that “Our uniform experience of cause and effect shows that intelligent design is the only known cause of the origin of large amounts of functionally specified digital information.”[7] Though Gelerntner does not accept Meyer’s conclusions that the only “feasible [explanation] is intelligent design,” he does recognize that specific “digital information,” such as DNA codes that are intended for one purpose only might indeed lead one to consider not only intelligent design but even an “intelligent designer.” After reading Stephen Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt (2013), this leading scientist states: “Stephen Meyer’s thoughtful and meticulous Darwin’s Doubt convinced me that Darwin has failed.”[8] The ongoing discussion among current scientists is encouraging. Over a thousand PhD scientists declare themselves publicly as “evolution skeptics.”[9] This may lead some to seek the real intelligent designer, our infinite yet personal God, who created the universe and humans, male and female, in his image.
Our children need to know that Psalm 33:6,9 was right all the time: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made and all the hosts of them by the breath of his power…for he spoke, and it came to be, he commanded and it stood firm.” What some have recently learned in reflection on science begins to fit the biblical doctrine of creation. We need to encourage our junior high and high school students to become familiar enough with such debates that they can speak up confidently in their classrooms.
Sexuality
“‘Drag Queen Story Hours’ Expose Pre-Schoolers to What Some Parents Call ‘Gender Insanity.’” This article’s title suggests that the insanity probably lies more with parents who think the experience of adult drag is broadening to their children’s little minds and so happily bring them along to the local public library. They believe the event “captures the imagination and play of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive and diverse role models.”[10] The library “system’s youth and family services manager” justifies the event in a similar way: “We wanted to make sure we cover a wide variety of interests and speak to all members of our community.”
The National Sexuality Education Standards, according to the Centers of Disease Control, propose to mid-grade school children, in vivid and often pornographic forms, that all sex acts are valid except vaginal intercourse (which produces pregnancy). For the sake of decorum I will simply cite an article that readers can peruse as factual proof.[11]
Here are some of the sexually explicit books (for toddlers to teens) that appear on school reading lists on the subject of homosexuality and transgenderism:

Gender Queer, an illustrated memoir, contains explicit illustrations of oral sex and masturbation.
The novel Lawn Boycontains graphic descriptions of sex between men and children.
George contains explicit illustrations of men engaging in homosexual acts.
A further category is transgender booksfor children of all ages, including Neither, describing to infants a land of “this and that,” of “neither,” and of “both.”
Another book’s title declares that It Feels Good to Be Yourself, no matter what your gender identity is.

Written about the educational situation in the UK, the following quote is also what many US schools promote:
Much of culture nowadays assumes sex is just for play. Porn is sold as something that is light-hearted and fun; teenagers are encouraged to “experiment” as long as it’s “with consent”; schools are now teaching explicit sex education, including programmes such as “All About Me,” which discusses self-stimulation from age 6. Some 99% of 12–15 year-olds are online in the UK. A recent survey found that 94% of children had been exposed to porn by the age of 14. And yet 75% of parents believe their children are not viewing pornography online.[12]
Such deliberate attempts to cause “little ones to sin” by proposing at tender ages immoral sexual thoughts and actions will doubtless produce generations of hardened adults for whom sexual purity is meaningless. Our children need to know, understand, and believe the serious theological analysis of God as the unique image by which we understand our sexuality. The difference between the sexes is reflective of the essence of the gospel, of God as Trinity, and of Christ’s love for the Church. Only by the gospel can we hope to save our rising generations from utter moral degradation. We must not allow our children to be exposed to such poisonous material.
Sociology and Critical Race Theory 
Something is happening in the classroom that has never happened before. Another tenet of the Humanist Manifesto to which Dewey signed his name was a socialized and cooperative economic order. Dewey was a great admirer of Soviet communism and atheism. He was happy to endorse radical socialism. Bringing about this social revolution in our day is the teaching of Critical Race Theory, by which people are being indoctrinated across the land—in government, business, the military and higher education, but also in grade schools and kindergartens. One Tennessee mom recently warned Williamson County parents that her seven-year-old daughter came home from school saying, “I’m ashamed that I’m White.” Her daughter asked, “Is there something wrong with me? Why am I hated so much?” The mother is considering putting her seven-year-old in therapy.[13] The child is being encouraged by her teachers to be ashamed of the color of her skin.[14] One private school parent, born in a Communist nation, states: “I came to this country escaping the very same fear of retaliation that now my own child feels.”[15] This is a sin, the sin of the use and mistreatment for political ends of vulnerable children. When a government sets its sights on corrupting children’s souls, it no longer has any legitimacy. Children can be taken from their parents and their gender forcefully reassigned.[16] Radical theories of racism and politically motivated propaganda have no place in the classroom. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona recently declared that parents should not be the “primary stakeholder” in their children’s education.[17] This repeats BLM’s Marxist website which declared: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another.”[18] Vladimir Lenin, a precursor of progressivism, is reputed to have said: “Give me four years to teach children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”[19] According to Don Feder, “For Marxists, killing the family is the key to everything. The war on the family isn’t peripheral; it’s central to the revolution.”[20] But Scripture teaches that children are born into families, not into governments. This notion of the powerful state is converting our schools into centers of ideological and political indoctrination contrary to the norms of the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian way of life.
The problem gets worse. Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a form of political Oneism, because it denies individual distinction. The concept of individual rights is a political form of Twoism, that is, it affirms that every individual, made in the image of God with rights from the Creator, is different and distinct and deserves the right of free speech. Since there is no longer common civic ground, various forms of Twoism must simply be annihilated. CRT will make it happen.
In a more overtly religious frame, the California Department of Education recently voted on a new statewide “ethnic studies” curriculum (inspired by CRT) that advocates for the “decolonization” [actually the dechristianization] of American society via the elevation and worship of the old Aztec gods of South America.Since the United States was founded on a “Eurocentric, white supremacist [racist, anti-Black, anti-Indigenous], capitalist [classist], patriarchal [sexist and misogynistic], heteropatriarchal [homophobic], and anthropocentric paradigm brought from Europe,” and since White Christians committed “theocide” against indigenous tribes, killing the Aztec and Mayan gods and replacing them with Christianity, now the God of Christianity must go—all in the service of a left-wing political ideology to be imposed upon California’s entire primary and secondary education system, which consists of 10,000 public schools serving a total of 6 million children.[21] The goal is for children to attain “critical consciousness” and, consequently, to develop the capacity to overthrow their oppressors. The ultimate goal is to “decolonize” American society, cancel white Christian culture, and bring about the “regeneration of indigenous spirituality.”[22] The curriculum suggests the chanting of prayers that invoke the deity Tezkatlipoka, an Aztec god that was honored with human sacrifices, “to be used as energizers to bring the class together, build unity around ethnic studies principles and values, and to reinvigorate the class.”[23]
The assault on children is also an assault on parents. A new memorandum issued by Attorney General Merrick Garland to the FBI and federal prosecutors across the country threatens concerned parents who have been showing up at school-board meetings to protest the teaching of CRT and pornographic sex. The memo condemns “threats of violence” but adds “other forms of intimidation and harassment,”[24] making heated opposition on the part of parents into a possibly punishable offence. This is pure political intimidation.[25] The irony is that their indoctrinated children are taught to believe that their parents are to blame for the state of social injustice.
We need to pray that the millions of brain-washed children, as they reach adulthood, will not do to their children and to their fellow citizens what the prophet Isaiah says of the ancient pagans: Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb; their eyes will not pity children(Isaiah13:18). In the light of what the pagan culture is doing to children, Jesus’ love for them must give to believers in these difficult days a firm resolve, whatever the cost, whatever the sacrifice, to protect their children from false ideology, to bring them up in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord,” and to faithfully proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ in an apostate culture (Ephesians 6:4).
We leave to God’s wisdom the use of millstones.
Dr. Peter Jones is scholar in residence at Westminster Seminary California and associate pastor at New Life Presbyterian Church in Escondido, Calif. He is director of truthXchange, a communications center aimed at equipping the Christian community to recognize and effectively respond to the rise of paganism. This article is used with permission.

[1] https://parkviewchristianschool.org/2018/06/05/sending-christian-children-to-public-schools-what-the-results-show.
[2] https://www.pbs.org/onlyateacher/john.html.
[3] https://parkviewchristianschool.org/2018/06/05/sending-christian-children-to-public-schools-what-the-results-show.
[4] Art.cit.
[5] Art.cit.
[6] Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, 6.
[7] Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt (pdf version, 343/568).
[8] https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/giving-up-darwin.
[9] https://www.discovery.org/a/number-one-of-our-stories-of-2019.
[10] https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/august/drag-queen-story-hours-expose-pre-schoolers-to-what-some-parents-call-gender-insanity.
[11] Nick Bell, “New Sex Ed ‘Common Core’ Would Force Explicit Images, Gender Mayhem, and Abortion on Kids,” The Federalist  (Oct 12, 2021).
[12] ”How to sex-proof your children,” https://christianconcern.com/resource/how-to-sex-proof-your-children.
[13] Christ Butler, “Williamson County Parents Warn Critical Race Theory Has Already Entered their Public School System.” https://tennesseestar.com/ April 22. 2021.
[14] https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/2021/7/why-is-critical-race-theory-dangerous-for-our-kids.
[15] Bari Weiss, “Woke Kids: The Miseducation of America’s Elite,” March 9, 20121 City Journal.
[16] Rich Sweir, “Shocking Video: Educators Push Racism and Extremist ‘White Privilege’ Propaganda on Children,” BARBWIRE (5 June, 2014): See http://barbwire.com/2014/06/05/shocking-video-educators-push-racism-extremist-white-privilege-propaganda-children/#Uqd0DHgOOdfFtKGq.99.
[17] https://www.wnd.com/2021/10/bidens-education-secretary-parents-not-primary-stakeholder-kids-education/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=wnd-breaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=breaking&ats_es=%5B-MD5-%5D.
[18] Though BLM took down its website in order to conceal its Marxist beliefs, others preserved it. See https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/10/left-locked-life-and-death-struggle-family-don-feder/.
[19] https://www.quora.com/How-relevant-do-you-think-these-words-are-Give-me-four-years-to-teach-the-children-and-the-seed-I-have-sown-will-never-be-uprooted-by-Vladimir-Lenin.
[20] https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/10/left-locked-life-and-death-struggle-family-don-feder/.
[21] https://www.city-journal.org/calif-ethnic-studies-curriculum-accuses-christianity-of-theocide.
[22] https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-students-pray-aztec-gods-school-lawsuit.
[23] Art.cit.
[24] https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download.
[25] Gerard Baker, Merrick Garland Has a List, and You’re Probably on It (WSJ, Oct 11, 2021). See also Michael Cutler. “Targeting American Parents-Biden administration finds new ‘domestic terrorists,’” Frontpagemagazine (Oct 12, 2021).