8 ways to help your child with new school year jitters
By / Aug 8

A new school year brings an array of feelings for kids returning to the school building. While some kids look with excitement toward a new year, others kids may feel nervous or anxious. There are a variety of reasons that kids may be hesitant to return to school; bullying, school shootings, learning disabilities, negative school experiences, being a new student, or simply fear of missing mom and dad. For these reasons and others, the start of school may weigh heavy on your child. What can parents do to help their children reduce school nerves? Here are a few pointers: 

1. Have appropriate expectations.

Parents may find themselves feeling frustrated when their child is anxious. Why? Because anxious kids often think illogically and have meltdowns or negative behaviors. Parents must recognize and prepare themselves for their child’s first day of school. Expect that your child may cry, whine, or not be as happy and easy going when he feels nervous. Expect that it may take a couple days or weeks for your child to feel comfortable in the new school year. Anxious feelings don’t always pass quickly. Understanding your child’s behavior can help reduce a parent’s own frustration.

2. Identify and discuss feelings.

One simple action for parents is to help their children identify and learn about feelings. Help your child identify a feeling by giving them the language for how they feel (i.e., angry, frustrated, mad), and help them describe what they are experiencing (i.e., being nervous feels like my tummy has butterflies). Talk about feelings and provide examples of times that you, as the parent, have felt the same way. 

Another great way to help kids identify feelings and problem solve is through reading age-appropriate books. Utilize books that discuss feelings or place characters in situations that provoke similar feelings that your child is experiencing. As you read, ask questions such as, “How do you think that person feels?” “What could the person do in that situation?” “What would you do in that situation?” or “Tell me a time that you have felt that same way.” It’s easier for kids to talk about tough feelings when 1) There are elements of play involved (i.e., reading), 2) When they are talking about the feelings of someone else, and 3) When there is ample time to process their thoughts.

Here are a few book suggestions for preschool and elementary school kids that will help them express how they feel:

  • Wemberly Worried by Kevin Henkes
  • Zoe’s Hiding Place by David Powlison
  • Everyone Feels Anxious at Times by Dr. Daniela Owen
  • What Am I Feeling? By Dr. Josh Straub
  • What Do I Do With Worry? by Dr. Josh Straub

3. Make a worry list.

Ask your child to identify her worries. Also ask if you can write them down. Listen as your child speaks. Once the list is completed, you and your child can tackle one worry at a time. Stick with open-ended questions, like “Tell me about a time when you were worried about this,” and, “Help me understand what happens right before and after you have that worry.” Lastly, discuss with your child the likelihood of those events occurring, and have your child problem solve what she can do if that situation occurs. These actions help your child feel understood, while also helping your child recognize her ability to handle these tough situations and worries.

4. Prepare for the first day.

Help your child reduce her worries by talking about the first day and by planning ahead.  Preparing ahead of time can help reduce nerves or stress associated with the morning routine. Make sure your child goes to bed on time, eats a healthy breakfast, and lays out his school items and outfit the night before. Anxious feelings can also arise when a child doesn’t know what to expect. Eliminate some of those feelings by detailing the first day of school so your child knows what to expect: Start with waking up, the car ride there, the school schedule, pickup times, and what he can look forward to after the school day ends. Providing predictability can reduce anxious feelings.

5. Practice coping skills. 

When kids feel anxious or stressed, they can retreat into fight, flight, or freeze mode. Their behavior looks defiant when it is actually a reaction to being scared. Talk openly with your child about their reactions and healthy coping skills. Practice deep breathing, journaling, looking around for a favorite color, reciting Bible verses, or any other helpful coping strategies. Have your child practice the skills in preparation for moments she will need them. 

6. Use examples from Scripture.

Scripture is packed with examples of anxiety-provoking situations, fearful individuals, and a faithful God that provides for his people. Utilize biblical examples to point your kids to God’s faithfulness, provision, and grace. Some of my favorite stories include: Peter walking on water, Jesus’ disciples hiding after the crucifixion, Moses not wanting to go to Pharaoh, and Joseph in prison.

7. Memorize Scripture.

There are over 360 verses in Scripture that deal with anxiety or fear. Help your child memorize some of the verses, so he can recall them during times of worry. Remembering Scripture also helps your child fight worried thoughts with truth. I would encourage you to do this yourself so that you can quote the verses together in preparation for the school day. Model this priority in your own life, and share with your children when you have quoted these affirmations to yourself in times of anxiety.

8. Pray. 

Utilize the opportunity to teach your child about praying for their worries. Kids’s prayers can sometimes sound rehearsed or repetitive, and that’s OK. But praying in the midst of a struggle can help them talk to God more candidly. Pray with your children, and pray for your children.

While most children experience jitters on the first day of school, other kids experience more than that. They experience anxiety.  If your child’s anxiety is negatively impacting his life, don’t hesitate to seek help from a qualified counselor. God has gifted some believers in the body of Christ to counsel others. Asking for help is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of wisdom. Not sure where to start? Often insurance plans cover some mental health benefits, so check with your plan. I would also recommend these sites: 

As you navigate school worries with your children, remember God himself is available to and present with your children, and he has given them you to support and encourage them. Don’t negate the special role you play in helping your children in the midst of their struggles, and ask the Lord to help you in the journey.

Top Quotes: Supreme Court upholds religious freedom for Maine families
By / Jun 21

In an affirmation of religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Carson v. Makin on June 21 that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justice Breyer authored the dissenting opinion joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor except for Part I-B. Justice Sotomayor also wrote a dissenting opinion.

This decision builds upon encouraging precedents set in previously decided cases concerning religious liberty. In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer and Espinoza v. Montana, states sought to bar religious institutions from using public funds even though those public benefits were not otherwise restricted. The Court ruled in favor of religious liberty in both cases and has now barred similar discriminatory maneuvering by Maine education officials. The Court ruled that parents who choose to participate in a tuition assistance program cannot have their constitutional right to free exercise abridged merely on the basis of sending their children to a religious school. This decision upholds religious liberty by reaffirming the precedent that states cannot exclude organizations and schools from receiving public benefits simply because they are religious. 

In the amicus brief the ERLC joined, we argued that Maine’s public education system, especially in light of how Maine defended its system in the courts, does not merely exclude religious schools — it discriminates against them.  

Below are key quotes from the majority opinion, concurrence, and dissent, highlighting how the court reached its decision. Page numbers from the court’s decision are given for each quote, but legal citations are omitted for clarity of reading.

For more details on the religious liberty issues present in this case, see our explainer here. To keep up to date on all Supreme Court cases we are watching in 2022, visit ERLC.com/SCOTUS.

———-

From the Syllabus 

“Petitioners sought tuition assistance to send their children to Bangor Christian Schools (BCS) and Temple Academy. Although both BCS and Temple Academy are accredited by NEASC, the schools do not qualify as “nonsectarian” and are thus ineligible to receive tuition payments under Maine’s tuition assistance program. Petitioners sued the commissioner of the Maine Department of Education, alleging that the “nonsectarian” requirement violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (1)

“The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects against ‘indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions.’ The Court recently applied this principle in the context of two state efforts to withhold otherwise available public benefits from religious organizations.” (1-2)

“‘A State need not subsidize private education,’ the Court concluded, ‘but once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.’” (2)

“The principles applied in Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza suffice to resolve this case.” (2) 

“Both that program and this one disqualify certain private schools from public funding ‘solely because they are religious.’ A law that operates in that matter must be subjected to ‘the strictest scrutiny.’” (2)

“Maine’s program cannot survive strict scrutiny. A neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” (2)

“The First Circuit’s attempts to recharacterize the nature of Maine’s tuition assistance program do not suffice to distinguish this case from Trinity Lutheran or Espinoza.” (3)

“The First Circuit held that the ‘nonsectarian’ requirement was constitutional because the benefit was properly viewed not as tuition payments to be used at approved private schools but instead as funding for the ‘rough equivalent of the public school education that Maine may permissibly require to be secular.’ But the statute does not say anything like that. The benefit provided by statute is tuition at a public or private school, selected by the parent, with no suggestion that the ‘private school’ must somehow provide a ‘public’ education.” (3)  

“Maine has chosen to offer tuition assistance that parents may direct to the public or private schools of their choice. Maine’s administration of that benefit is subject to the free exercise principles governing any public benefit program-including the prohibition on denying the benefit based on a recipient’s religious exercise.” (3) 

“The Court of Appeals also attempted to distinguish this case from Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza on the ground that the funding restrictions in those cases were ‘solely status-based religious discrimination,’ while the challenged provision here ‘imposes a use-based restriction.’ Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza held that the Free Exercise Clause forbids discrimination on the basis of religious status. But those decisions never suggested that use-based discrimination is any less offensive to the Free Exercise Clause.” (3-4) 

Majority Opinion: Chief Justice John Roberts

“Prior to 1981, parents could also direct the tuition assistance payments to religious schools. Indeed, in the 1979– 1980 school year, over 200 Maine students opted to attend such schools through the tuition assistance program. In 1981, however, Maine imposed a new requirement that any school receiving tuition assistance payments must be ‘a nonsectarian school in accordance with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.’” (3)

“BCS and Temple Academy are both accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), and the Department considers each school a ‘private school approved for attendance purposes’ under the State’s compulsory attendance requirement.” (5)

“In particular, we have repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.” (7)

“A neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” (10)

“Maine’s decision to continue excluding religious schools from its tuition assistance program after Zelman thus promotes stricter separation of church and state than the Federal Constitution requires.” (10)

“Justice Breyer stresses the importance of “government neutrality” when it comes to religious matters, post, at 13, but there is nothing neutral about Maine’s program. The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools — so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion. A State’s anti-establishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise.” (10-11)

“…it is simply not the case that these schools, to be eligible for state funds, must offer an education that is equivalent—roughly or otherwise—to that available in the Maine public schools. But the key manner in which the two educational experiences are required to be ‘equivalent’ is that they must both be secular. Saying that Maine offers a benefit limited to private secular education is just another way of saying that Maine does not extend tuition assistance payments to parents who choose to educate their children at religious schools. But ‘the definition of a particular program can always be manipulated to subsume the challenged condition,’ and to allow States to ‘recast a condition on funding’ in this manner would be to see “the First Amendment…reduced to a simple semantic exercise.” (13)

“The dissents are wrong to say that under our decision today Maine ‘must’ fund religious education. Maine chose to allow some parents to direct state tuition payments to private schools; that decision was not ‘forced upon’ it.” (14)

“Montana argued that its case was different from Trinity Lutheran’s because it involved not playground resurfacing, but general funds that ‘could be used for religious ends by some recipients, particularly schools that believe faith should ‘permeate’ everything they do’…We explained, however, that the strict scrutiny triggered by status-based discrimination could not be avoided by arguing that ‘one of its goals or effects [was] preventing religious organizations from putting aid to religious uses’…And we noted that nothing in our analysis was ‘meant to suggest that we agree[d] with [Montana] that some lesser degree of scrutiny applies to discrimination against religious uses of government aid.’” (15)

“In Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza, we held that the Free Exercise Clause forbids discrimination on the basis of religious status. But those decisions never suggested that use-based discrimination is any less offensive to the Free Exercise Clause.” (16)

“Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.” (18)

Dissenting Opinion: Justice Breyer

“The Court today pays almost no attention to the words in the first Clause while giving almost exclusive attention to the words in the second. The majority also fails to recognize the ‘play in the joints’ between the two Clauses.” (1)

“This means that a State cannot use ‘its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines and ideals…Nor may a State ‘adopt programs or practices in its public schools . . . which ‘aid or oppose’ any religion…This prohibition,’ we have cautioned, ‘is absolute.’” (2)

“In a word, to interpret the two Clauses as if they were joined at the hip will work against their basic purpose: to allow for an American society with practitioners of over 100 different religions, and those who do not practice religion at all, to live together without serious risk of religion-based social divisions.” (6)

“We have never previously held what the Court holds today, namely, that a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public school education. What happens once ‘may’ becomes ‘must’?” (7)

“State funding of religious activity risks the very social conflict based upon religion that the Religion Clauses were designed to prevent. And, unlike the circumstances present in Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza, it is religious activity, not religious labels, that lies at the heart of this case.” (9)

“Maine does not refuse to pay tuition at private schools because of religious status or affiliation. The State only denies funding to schools that will use the money to promote religious beliefs through a religiously integrated education – an education that, in Maine’s view, is not a replacement for a civic-focused public education.” (14)

“…Maine’s decision not to fund such schools falls squarely within the play in the joints between those two Clauses. Maine has promised all children within the State the right to receive a free public education. In fulfilling this promise, Maine endeavors to provide children teh religiously neutral education required in public school systems. And that, in significant part, reflects the State’s anti-establishment interests in avoiding spending public money to support what is essentially religious activity. The Religion Clauses give Maine the ability, and flexibility, to make this choice.” (15)

“In my view, Maine’s nonsectarian requirement is also constitutional because it supports, rather than undermines, the Religion Clauses’ goal of avoiding religious strife. Forcing Maine to fund schools that provide the sort of religiously integrated education offered by Bangor Christian and Temple Academy creates a similar potential for religious strife as that raised by promoting religion in public school.” (15)

“Maine wishes to provide children within the State with a secular, public education. This wish embodies, in significant part, the constitutional need to avoid spending public money to support what is essentially the teaching and practice of religion.” (18)

Dissenting Opinion: Justice Sotomayor

“This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.” (1)

“…The Court now holds for the first time that ‘any status-use distinction’ is immaterial in both ‘theory’ and ‘practice.’ … It reaches that conclusion by embracing arguments from prior separate writings and ignoring decades of precedent affording government flexibility in navigating the tension between the Religion Clauses. As a result, in just a few years, the Court has upended constitutional doctrine, shifting from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars.” (3)

“Nonetheless, it is irrational for this Court to hold that the Free Exercise Clause bars Maine from giving money to parents to fund the only type of education the State may provide consistent with the Establishment Clause: a religiously neutral one. Nothing in the Constitution requires today’s result.” (5)

“What a difference five years makes. In 2017, I feared that the Court was ‘lead[ing] us … to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.’ … Today the Court leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation. If a State cannot offer subsidies to its citizens without being required to fund religious exercise, any State that values its historic anti-establishment interests more than this Court does will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens. With growing concern for where this Court will lead us next, I respectfully dissent.” (5)

The SBC Executive Committee sexual abuse report and the Uvalde school shooting
By / May 27

In this episode, Brent and Lindsay discuss the finding from  Sexual Abuse Task Force report on the sexual abuse cover-up in the SBC Executive Committee. They also lament the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. 

ERLC Content

Culture

Connect with us on Twitter

Sponsors

  • Dobbs Resource Page Prayer Guide | Right now, the Supreme Court is considering a major Mississippi abortion case called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The ERLC and other pro-life organizations filed an amicus brief in this case urging the Supreme Court to overturn the disatrous Roe v. Wade decision. Members of our team also joined pro-life advocates on the steps of the Supreme Court when oral arguments were heard last December. As we approach the Supreme Court’s final decision in June of this year, it’s important for Christians to pray for this landmark case and begin preparing our churches to serve vulnerable women and children in a potential post-Roe world. Download our free prayer guide at ERLC.com/Dobbs.
  • Dobbs Resource Page | Many Christians are aware that an important case about abortion is being decided at the Supreme Court this June. But for many, this case is confusing and wrapped in a lot of legal jargon. The ERLC wants to help with that, so we’ve created a resource page that will help you and your church understand what this case means, what could happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and how your church can prepare to serve vulnerable women and children in the aftermath. To learn more about the Dobbs case and how you can pray, visit ERLC.com/Dobbs.

Explainer: States propose bills related to parental rights, gender identity, and sexuality
By / May 13

Florida recently passed legislation expanding and codifying parental rights in their child’s education. One of the most controversial sections of the law prohibits classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade or in a manner that is not age or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. 

Critics have used this provision to frame this legislation as a “Don’t Say Gay” law. But supporters on both sides of the political aisle say such legislation is necessary because parents should be informed regarding what their children are taught about topics like homosexuality, transgenderism, and gender fluidity.

“Parents have a fundamental right to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children, and schools should not be keeping important information from parents,” said Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson. “Children belong to families, not the state.”

Since the passage of the Florida bill, more than a dozen other states have proposed similar legislation. Here is some of the legislation related to parental rights and LGBTQ+ issues in education:

Alabama: In April, the state passed an amendment that prohibits classroom instruction or discussion on sexual orientation or gender identity for students in kindergarten through the fifth grade in public K-12 schools.

Arizona: A proposed bill in the legislature would allow parents to review the formational documents of any school student group or club involving sexuality, gender, or gender identity. Another bill had language stricken from its final version that would have prevented school officials from withholding or concealing, facilitating, encouraging, or coercing students into concealing a student’s gender identity or “requested transition” if it is “incongruous with their biological sex.” Parents also would have needed to give consent before students were asked questions on a survey about gender expression, perception, or stereotypes. 

Indiana: A proposed bill would prohibit any requirement for students enrolled at a state educational institution to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling. Another proposed bill would require parents’ written consent for students to receive sex education on transgenderism and would require parental consent for medical inspections or mental health treatment, including on counseling about gender transitioning issues, pronoun selection, and referral to other agencies that provide these services.

Iowa: A proposed bill prohibits curriculum provided to a student from including instruction relating to gender identity unless the school district or accredited nonpublic school obtains the prior written consent of the student’s parent or guardian. If a parent or guardian does not provide written consent, a student may opt out of instruction relating to gender identity. Another bill would require schools to give a week’s notice to parents before educators ask students which pronoun they prefer or before administering a survey on pronoun use and to send them the response upon request.

Louisiana: A proposed bill would prohibit classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindegarten through eighth grade and prohibit teachers, school employees, and presenters from discussing their sexual orientation or gender identity with students. 

Missouri: A proposed bill would prevent public schools from requiring students to engage in gender or sexual diversity training. 

North Carolina: A proposed bill would require any state employee to report to parents if a minor has exhibited symptoms of gender dysphoria, gender nonconformity, or otherwise demonstrates a desire to be treated in a manner incongruent with their biological sex.

Ohio: A proposed bill would prevent, teach, use, or provide any curriculum or instructional materials on sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through third grade, and prohibits students in grades four through 12 from being taught or having to use curriculum or instructional materials on sexual orientation or gender identity in any manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

Oklahoma: A proposed bill would prohibit public schools or libraries from holding or promoting books that make as their primary subject the study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender issues or recreational sexualization.

Rhode Island: A proposed bill would also require children to be addressed by their common names and the pronouns associated with their biological gender unless parent permission is given to change them.

South Carolina: A proposed bill would prevent any state-funded entity from subjecting minors under the age of 18 to instruction, presentations, discussions, counseling, or materials in any medium that involve a number of “controversial and age-inappropriate topics,” including gender identity. The state has also proposed a bill that says a student, administrator, teacher, staff member, other school or district employee, or volunteer may not be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling.

Tennessee: A proposed bill would prohibit the state board from approving textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promotes, normalizes, supports, or addresses lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles.

Wisconsin: The governor vetoed broad-based parent’s rights legislation that included a right to determine the names and pronouns used for the child while at school.

Explainer: What is Carson v. Makin about?
By / Dec 8

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carson v. Makin, a key religious liberty case before the court this term. Here’s what you need to know about this case:

What is the case about?

This case arises out of the unique way that Maine provides free education to its 180,000 students. Every child in the United States is entitled to a free public education. In Maine, there are rural areas where students don’t have easy access to a public school. Given that limitation, some of the school districts allow parents to choose a private school in the area to teach their children. 

In order for a school to be able to participate in this program — and receive government funding — the private school must meet the state’s minimum requirements, and it must be “nonsectarian.” Functionally, this excludes a private religious school from participating in Maine’s public education program, because any school that provides religious instruction is considered “sectarian.”

In this case, three families sent their children to private schools that are accredited but do not meet the nonsectarian requirement because they are religiously affiliated. The schools aren’t approved by the State of Maine, and the families did not qualify for tuition assistance. They filed a lawsuit stating that Maine’s nonsectarian requirement violates the Constitution.

This case is a follow-up from Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which both dealt with the question of whether states can exclude organizations and schools from receiving public benefits simply because they are religious. Each case was decided favorably for religious liberty.

Why is this case important?

In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Supreme Court held, “A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious” 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2261 (2020).

The Carson case is important because it would close a loophole the First Circuit opened when upholding Maine’s exclusion of “sectarian” schools from its public education system. As the brief ERLC joined on petition for certiorari explains:

Nor can a state justify discrimination against religious schools with the ploy that the First Circuit permitted here: labeling its benefit as a “substitute” for, or “rough equivalent” of, a free “secular public education,” and then arguing that such an education must be secular, so religious schools can be excluded. That result and rationale conflict with this Court’s ruling in Espinoza and would allow easy evasion of Espinoza in the context of many government benefits. This Court must reject that rationale before other states attempt to capitalize on it.

Maine had argued that it was not excluding religious schools from participating in a public education program because the public benefit offered was for a secular education. It is easy to see how states would be able to continue excluding religious organizations from public benefits simply by redefining the nature of the benefit offered.

How has the ERLC been involved?

The ERLC was involved with briefs at the petition for certiorari stage and when the case was before the Supreme Court on the merits.

The brief the ERLC joined on the merits argues that Maine’s public education system, especially in light of how Maine defended its system in the courts, does not merely exclude religious schools — it discriminates against them. The brief goes on to argue that the Supreme Court should adopt a per se rule against religious discrimination. In other words, where a state discriminates against religion, courts should immediately strike down the law rather than applying any kind of balancing test with state interests.

What’s next for this case?

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on Dec. 8, 2021. The court will release its opinion later this term, likely in May or June of 2022. ERLC will continue to cover future developments on this case at ERLC.com.

The ERLC will always protect religious liberty before Congress, the courts, and in the public square. 

For Further Reading:

Explosions at Kabul airport, Pfizer’s approval, and the debate over masks in schools
By / Aug 27

In this episode, Lindsay and Brent discuss how Christians should navigate vaccine mandates, explosions at the Kabul airport, how many Americans remain in Kabul, ICU beds running out once again, colleges cracking down on unvaccinated students, Pfizer’s full FDA approval, masks in school, and one father’s response to mask mandates. Lindsay also gives a rundown of this week’s ERLC content including Jason Thacker with “Why Christians should navigate questions of vaccine mandates and religious exemptions with wisdom,” Julie Masson with “3 ways parents can talk to their kids about Afghanistan,” and Jordan Wootten with “Explainer: Texas law banning abortion procedure upheld by court of appeals.”

ERLC Content

Culture

  1. ICU beds are running out again
  2. Colleges crack down on unvaccinated students as campuses reopen
  3. U.S. regulators give Pfizer vaccine full approval
  4. Texas father strips down over masks in schools
  5. Explosions rock Kabul airport
  6. 1,500 Americans remain in Kabul

Lunchroom

Connect with us on Twitter

Sponsors