IC ISD Board Didn't Take the Prayer Bait Known as SB 11
- G. Noelke
- Sep 5
- 9 min read
Update on September 5, 2025: Read here for more on why this law is a bait. (This page was originally posted on August 24, 2025.)
A. The role of the Texas Attorney General's Office in this law should cause alarm B. The subject matter - religious prayer on school grounds - is an incendiary topic for an open forum C. The no vote had a voice, and it was persuasive
This month, at two meetings on August 4 and 12, 2025, the Irion County ISD Board finally voted against adopting a policy that would have allowed for daily prayer on school campuses, as outlined in SB 11. After several hours of testimony, the vote was 4 to 3. This post will discuss why I find the law particularly problematic and will highlight the comments of board member Ashley Hill, who I believe perfectly articulated why such a policy should be rejected. I will also address the "In God We Trust" sign displayed on the school's new gymnasium.
A. The role of the Texas Attorney General's Office in this law should cause alarm From a legal perspective, it is readily transparent that SB 11, first, is anticipated to be challenged in court, and second, that the Texas Attorney General will control the litigation. This means any school district sued will quickly lose control over the litigation and any local policy will become a temporary policy for the courts to amend or invalidate. (Note, at the time of this post the law has not yet been challenged.)
Generally, the law requires that "the Attorney General of Texas, on request from the governing body of a school district ... to provide advice on the best methods for compliance, a model consent form that may be used, and defend the school district ... in a cause of action arising from the adoption of a policy" that permits daily prayer time on campuses. Go here for the Senate Research Center bill analysis. More specifically, the new law references the Attorney General at Education Code 25.0823 (e) and (f). My review of this language and the online legislative history leads me to conclude:
The law does not include adequate language requiring the Attorney General to obtain approval from the school board before he settles their case. This means the Attorney General, not the school board and certainly not the local community, is in charge of the outcome of the prayer policy in dispute. (The Attorney General could settle the case without the board’s consent.)
The key stakeholders of the law (the Attorney General's Office, the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Association of School Boards) did not testify "for", "against" or even "on" the legislation. They were silent. This is a real problem for any school board and local community trying to ascertain the meaning of the law before they undertake adoption of the prayer policy. It will also hamper the court's analysis of the legislative history, making the meaning of the law even more uncertain. Go here and here to see who testified on the bill.
The fiscal note with the bill, the required legislative document that explains how much all this is going to cost, is silent on the actual costs. This creates two unknowns. First, no one knows what resources, if any, the Attorney General's office is going to dedicate to the litigation. And, second, because the Texas Legislature theoretically will be the ultimate funding source, no one can possibly know whether the money will be made available in the future for the State to indemnify the school board for "expenses, costs, judgments or settlements." Why would any school board take this sort of funding gamble when the Legislature and Governor Abbott have taken years to come up with funds to pay teacher salary increases, especially when those increases were conditioned on school vouchers? At best, any promise of financial indemnification under this law is a hollow promise. It's just as likely that any school district having to pay for an unlawful policy will have to pay from its own budget, and then seek compensation from the legislature.
B. The subject matter - religious prayer on school grounds - is an incendiary topic for an open forum
I was frankly stunned when I heard two community members, professing to be of the Christian faith, state during open forum that if Muslims and Atheists were ever to come to the school and want to pray or engage in protest of the policy that the Board could simply revoke the policy "like nothing had ever happened". These transparent prejudicial sentiments are certain to be incendiary among some. Moreover, such an act to repeal a policy permitting prayer in the presence of non-Christians would certainly be challenged under constitutional First Amendment and equal protection grounds. Unfortunately, IC ISD did not have an attorney present at the meeting to distance the board members from these comments, so it remains unclear whether those members who voted "for" the policy were adopting these views. Fortunately for the Board, they failed to adopt the policy thereby these comments are now legally irrelevant. (They do, however, remain as an unfriendly reminder of how some in the community reject others of different faith.) Indeed, I think the prejudices laid bare during this open forum are exactly the conflict the drafters of this law were hoping for, as evidenced by the law mentioning only the Bible without specifying the name of other religious texts. This law is a bait to engage in someone else's culture war; it is someone else's dog whistle to invite the community to start a dog fight and divide folks between "us" and "them". (Who that "someone else" might be could be a large political donor, but that discussion is for another day.)
I think it is important to recognize even among the various Christian faiths not all speak in unison about the appropriateness of SB 11. Just as not all faiths speak with one voice about the proselytizing that is arguably foundational for SB 11, not all Christians agree, for example, on displaying the Ten Commandments in classrooms.
In fact, one of the plaintiffs who recently successfully challenged SB 10, the new law relating to the display of the 10 Commandments in the classroom, is a Baptist Reverend. The judge of that case (Rabbi Nathan et al v. Alamo Heights ISD ) referenced this quote in his ruling: “When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion, it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.”– Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackman. The same can be said about the SB 11 policy. How can our Constitution be premised on all being equal if a school board cancels a Christian favored prayer policy once Muslims and Atheists show up and voice non-Christian views? The inequality in such a situation would be a clear violation of the Constitution.
C. The no vote had a voice, and it was persuasive
Listen to IC ISD Board member Ashley Hill's full statement at the board meeting on my Government in the Sun YouTube Channel. Her comments are particularly compelling. She made it clear that she represented all children and parents in the district, not just her own, and that not everyone shared the same beliefs. Importantly, she stated that a "no" vote did not mean that she was turning her back on her faith. And, she also made it clear that a "no" vote did not mean that anyone's rights were being taken away. One can be of any particular faith — or no faith —and appreciate the inclusiveness of her vote. That's the sentiment that assures adherence to the Constitution, as it doesn’t give favor to any particular faith. Like it or not, that's her legal responsibility as a school board member.
D. The In God We Trust sign on City Gym
Finally, I want to address one particular comment made during the open forum. One parent invoked the "In God We Trust" sign on the exterior of the new gymnasium built with the 2019 bond funds. She said, in effect, if the school trusts God then that was the only thing needed to pass the policy contemplated by SB 11. And, if the Board didn't pass the policy, then they should just take the sign down because to leave it up would be hypocritical. In fact, back in April 2023 I wrote an intentionally provocative post about the sign. I raised the question: Is my interpretation of the sign sacrilegious or is the sign itself sacrilegious? Indeed, even today my sentiments about the sign are the same. That is, the sign itself is neither holy or sacred. My best guess is that the sign is merely the runner up sign to the disputed sign that was to name the largest financial donor to the gym's construction. What I do know is that at least $150,000 of private donations were made for the gym and the District administration back then never disclosed all the sources to me.
What I also know about the gym, something that has taken years of research, is that everyone involved knew that its location was unlawful. There was ample notice provided by me to the leadership of the City of Mertzon and Irion County ISD, their attorneys, as well as the architect and construction manager, that the street and alley where the gym now rests should have been closed with a municipal ordinance, and it was not. It was not closed properly with an ordinance because the legal grounds to do so did not exist. And, just as I predicted before the construction of the building, every time it rains my property takes on the District's stormwater that flows from the building.
For sure, I'm at the other end of the spectrum from the parent invoking In God We Trust as a religious affirmation that God favors prayer on school campus. Instead, the sign painfully reminds me of the Commandment "Thou shalt not steal" because the Constitutional prohibition against the government taking private land by flooding, inverse condemnation, is called a "Taking". Every time it rains the District is stealing my property, and as it turns out, the property of some of my neighbors.
The wisdom of our nation's Founders, however, is that there is room enough for all of us to see in the sign what we wish, and there is nothing illegal in the expression of that. That is amazing, truly amazing. That said, the In God We Trust sign should not be taken down. We should use it, instead, to continue debating the separation of church and state.
September 5, 2025 Update:
To further my point that this new law is a bait, look no further than the Texas Attorney General’s Office and its press statement below. This is the equivalent to saying: And school districts, once you pass the prayer policy, I not only want you to start the prayer period with a Christian prayer, but a specific version of a Christian prayer that not all Christian faiths recite. In other words, to the exclusion of all other non Christian prayers, I want you, school district, to initiate this culture war for me.
Here is the press statement, and I’ve pasted it below for posterity:
September 02, 2025 | Press Release
Attorney General Ken Paxton Encourages Texas Schools to Begin Legal Process of Putting Prayer Back in the Classroom and Recommends the Lord’s Prayer for Students
Attorney General Ken Paxton encourages all Texas schools to implement dedicated time for prayer and the reading of scripture, following the enactment of Senate Bill 11 on September 1, 2025.
“In Texas classrooms, we want the Word of God opened, the Ten Commandments displayed, and prayers lifted up,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Twisted, radical liberals want to erase Truth, dismantle the solid foundation that America’s success and strength were built upon, and erode the moral fabric of our society. Our nation was founded on the rock of Biblical Truth, and I will not stand by while the far-left attempts to push our country into the sinking sand.”
Senate Bill 11, passed by the Texas Legislature this past regular session, allows school boards to adopt policies setting aside time for voluntary prayer and the reading of the Bible or other religious texts. The law requires that the board of trustees for each ISD in Texas take a record vote on whether to adopt a policy to implement these periods no later than six months after September 1, 2025. Student participation in these periods requires parental consent.
The bill directs the Office of the Attorney General to defend any school district or charter school that adopts such a policy. In addition, the Attorney General is empowered to recommend best practices for implementation.
For Texas students considering how to best utilize this time, Attorney General Paxton encourages children to begin with the Lord’s Prayer, as taught by Jesus Christ:
The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13, KJV)
Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power,
and the glory, for ever.
Amen
Any school district taking this advice is being baited into litigation that they will never control. Of course reciting this prayer is violative of the Constitution. That is the point! This is a transparent effort to promote a culture war to advance a politician’s career at the U. S. Supreme Court. School districts are being used as pawns.
Copyright 2025 G Noelke
