Is ASU going to fire a Christian professor for being too Christian?



I believe Arizona State University has taken the first step toward terminating me, a tenured Christian professor, for being too Christian.

You might think tenure would protect a professor from religious discrimination by state university administrators. You would be mistaken. What I am experiencing at ASU demonstrates how university administrators can use the annual review process to punish professors for their beliefs and potentially build a case for terminating them.

This is harassment, and I believe it amounts to religious discrimination. It also sends a warning to every Christian professor at a public university.

Here is what is happening.

I am currently engaged in a lawsuit against ASU over its DEI training requirements. After more than two years of litigation, my attorneys argued before the Arizona Supreme Court on September 1. We are awaiting the court's decision.

This week, ASU’s provost has officially upheld a decision penalizing me for allegedly being too Christian in my classes.

In May, the dean of my college deducted points from my annual performance review and reduced merit pay because he claimed my teaching in 2025 was too Christian. What evidence did he offer for this remarkable accusation? Five quiz questions out of more than 80, along with two negative student evaluations.

That's it.

This is no longer merely one dean's judgment. ASU's senior administration has now endorsed the decision to penalize me for allegedly teaching classes that are too Christian. I have no further avenue of appeal within that process.

I have spent my career teaching students how to think. My administrators now seem determined to teach me what not to think. One wonders which of us has misunderstood the purpose of a university.

And the evidence? Let's examine it.

One question asks, "Why is knowing God the highest good?"

Is that uniquely Christian? Plato and Aristotle, neither of whom were Christians last I checked, explored the relationship between the divine, knowledge, and the highest good. Eastern philosophers have done the same. These questions have occupied philosophers for thousands of years.

Another asks, "What is the relationship between God and morality?"

Again, this is a foundational question in the history of philosophy. Plato raised it in the "Euthyphro." Aristotle connected ethics with his account of the highest good and the divine. Are we now supposed to eliminate questions about God and morality from philosophy courses?

RELATED: A Christian guide to trolling without sinning

Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

A third question states, "True or False: Death should not make us think about the meaning of life." This is a question from my class on the philosophical aspects of death and dying. It is a course I developed with ASU’s online specialists as part of master teacher training. ASU signed off on the class and then penalized me for teaching it!

The relationship between death and life's meaning is central to existential philosophy, including the writings of Viktor Frankl (not a Christian). Surely students studying philosophy should be allowed to consider how death relates to meaning in life.

These are philosophical questions, not evidence that I am improperly promoting Christianity.

One student wrote: "If I were a Hindu or Buddhist, and truly believed in reincarnation, I would be offended if I were asked to denounce it."

But I never asked that student, or anyone else, to denounce reincarnation, and the student gave no evidence that I did. Notice the hypothetical nature of the complaint: If I were a Hindu or Buddhist, and if I were asked to denounce my beliefs, I would be offended.

The student did not report that this actually happened.

The second student wrote: "Although I agree with what Owen Anderson teaches, I completely understand if people feel offended after taking his class."

Read that again. The student agrees with what I teach but imagines that someone else might be offended.

Apparently, at ASU, hypothetical offense by hypothetical students is sufficient grounds to penalize an actual professor. And this brings us to the larger problem.

Annual performance reviews are recurring evaluations. Once administrators officially determine that a professor's teaching is deficient because it is too Christian, what happens at the next review? I will be asked what steps I took to stop being so Christian? If administrators decide I have not adequately corrected the alleged problem, they can penalize me again. Repeated negative evaluations could then become the foundation for escalating disciplinary action.

That is how ASU could build a case for terminating a tenured professor.

RELATED: Campus free speech is alive — barely

Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

And consider the burden this imposes. Rather than spending my time exclusively on teaching, research, and serving students, I must defend myself against accusations supported by a handful of philosophical questions and speculative complaints. Are the non-Christian professors put through this same scrutiny and additional burden?

This is harassment, and I believe it amounts to religious discrimination. It also sends a warning to every Christian professor at a public university.

If you discuss God, morality, eternity, or the meaning of life, administrators can apparently decide your teaching is too Christian. Can they then deduct points from your annual review? Deny you merit pay? Can they begin documenting supposed deficiencies that might eventually threaten your employment?

The chilling effect is obvious. Christian professors may decide that silence is safer than risking administrative punishment.

I have spent more than two decades teaching philosophy at ASU. I believe students deserve to encounter the great questions of philosophy, including the questions about God that philosophers have discussed since antiquity.

A public university should encourage those questions, not punish professors for asking them. ASU receives public funding, including federal money. It should not be permitted to use its administrative power to discriminate against Christian faculty.

Today, the accusation is that my classes are too Christian. Tomorrow, the question may be whether I am allowed to remain a professor at all. And if ASU can do this to me, what prevents other public universities from doing the same to Christian professors across America?

Talarico’s Church Doesn’t Believe What He Claims
play icon

Talarico’s Church Doesn’t Believe What He Claims

CS Lewis knew how clever people teach themselves to be fools



The new trailer for Greta Gerwig’s “Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew” promises a dazzling sight: a world coming into being. Fans of C.S. Lewis will be watching Aslan and the White Witch. I’ll be watching Uncle Andrew. He may be the book’s most disturbing character because he teaches himself to deny what he knows.

Andrew’s talent for explaining away unwelcome truth raises an uncomfortable question about Gerwig’s adaptation. Will she allow Lewis to tell his Christian story, or will she explain its Christian meaning away?

God speaks through his Word, and Uncle Andrew shows how a person can become so skilled at self-defense that he loses the ability to listen.

As a philosophy professor and Christian pastor, I recognize the temptation. Education can help us discover truth. It can also equip us with elaborate excuses for resisting it. An impressive vocabulary does not guarantee an honest mind.

Lewis introduces Uncle Andrew as a man convinced that intellectual distinction exempts him from ordinary duties. Keeping promises is for lesser people. Andrew knows the secrets of the occult, so he imagines he can send children into dangers he refuses to face himself. He calls his cowardice greatness.

The vice is familiar: Exceptional ability supposedly confers exceptional moral privileges. A radical professor who believes his political vision justifies tearing down inherited institutions uses Andrew’s logic. So does the politician who excuses the dangers of communism or socialism because a glorious future allegedly demands sacrifices now. The superior mind claims authority to break rules it imposes on everyone else.

Then Uncle Andrew meets Aslan.

At first, Andrew hears the Lion’s song as music. It stirs thoughts and feelings he does not want to entertain. He then tells himself that no lion could possibly sing. He must have heard roaring. The longer Aslan sings, the harder Andrew works to believe his own explanation. Eventually he hears only animal noises, even when Aslan speaks.

Lewis gives us the verdict: “Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed.”

Notice the order. Andrew recognizes something, resists it, and finally loses the ability to recognize it. His ignorance is learned. What looks like an intellectual limitation begins as a moral refusal.

RELATED: The lion, the witch, and the worldview war

Gisela Schober/Getty Images

That’s why I worry about the film. A director can admire Lewis’s portals, creatures, and cosmic song while rejecting the Creator who gives them meaning. She can retain the scenery and rewrite the moral order. The result may look like Narnia without being Lewis’ Narnia.

A story has more than recognizable characters and scenes. It tells us what is good, what has gone wrong, and what would make things right. For Lewis, creation has a good and authoritative Creator. Sin requires repentance. Redemption answers a need human beings cannot overcome by declaring themselves enlightened.

Could a filmmaker present that vision faithfully without sharing Lewis’ faith? Certainly. But she must first let the author challenge her own assumptions. If Gerwig turns his Christian account of creation into a comfortable endorsement of modern cultural priorities, she will have made Uncle Andrew’s mistake: hearing the song and insisting it is merely roaring.

The trailer cannot settle that question, and I will judge the finished film when it arrives. My concern is what Hollywood so often does to stories whose moral claims it finds inconvenient. An adaptation should not become an exercise in correcting the author.

RELATED: Netflix ‘adapts’ Steinbeck’s ‘East of Eden’ — and Satan gets a sympathetic makeover

Emilio Madrid/Getty Images

Christians, however, should not congratulate themselves too quickly. Uncle Andrew is more than a stand-in for a leftist professor, a politician, or a Hollywood director. Lewis’ warning reaches the church as well.

In Romans 1, Paul writes of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. God reveals himself through creation, but human beings refuse to honor him or give thanks. Their reasoning becomes futile, and their hearts grow dark. They claim wisdom as they become fools.

Paul does not describe every unbeliever as someone who merely lacks information. Our desires shape what we are willing to admit. We can demand more evidence while insulating ourselves from the implications of evidence already before us.

Christians can do this, too. We acknowledge God’s revelation in creation, then find reasons to disregard it. We know a biblical command, then use our intelligence to argue that our circumstances make us the exception. We defend Christian books without accepting their correction. Praising Lewis’ theology is easier than submitting to the God he confessed.

That is why Uncle Andrew belongs in a Christian reflection rather than merely a debate over a Netflix film. We should ask whether our explanations clarify the truth or protect us from it. Can we admit that our clever argument was an excuse? Will we confess when God’s Word confronts something we want to keep?

Christ offers forgiveness to sinners who have spent years defending their sins. His grace frees us to abandon our excuses instead of perfecting them.

I hope Gerwig gives Lewis a faithful hearing. The finished film will show us whether she has. Meanwhile, our own hearing deserves examination. God speaks through his Word, and Uncle Andrew shows how a person can become so skilled at defending himself that he loses the ability to listen.

Strong Men Will Save The American Church

A small Tennessee conference exposed how comfortable we have become with a Church that will not fight.

Terror threat strikes Missouri archdiocese ahead of pre-sainthood Mass for Fulton Sheen



Tens of thousands of Catholics are set to attend the Mass of beatification — the last step before sainthood — for the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen in St. Louis on Thursday.

Roughly a week ahead of the celebration, over which Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle will preside, the Archdiocese of St. Louis was issued a terrorist threat.

'We pray for an end to the hatred.'

According to St. Louis County prosecutor Melissa Price Smith's office, 32-year-old Jeremiah Robinson of St. Genevieve allegedly stated in a TikTok video on Sept. 15 that he was two minutes away from the archdiocese's offices and that "God had instructed him to use no discernment and that 'everyone who walks into that church is guilty and to kill them.'"

Robinson allegedly posted a second video to social media once in the parking lot of the archdiocese offices in St. Louis and turned the camera to show the buildings, evidencing that he was indeed close.

Robinson claimed in the second video that he was instructed "to leave no one breathing," Smith's office alleged.

The Archdiocese of St. Louis did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

The FBI National Operation Center brought the videos to the attention of the Shrewsbury, Missouri, Police Department, and the archdiocese offices were promptly evacuated.

RELATED: How a new Texas parish reminds us that the age of Christian martyrs is not over

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

After a sweep of the building involving bomb dogs, police determined that the site was safe.

Robinson was slapped on Sept. 16 with a first-degree felony charge of making a terrorist threat and booked into the St. Louis County Justice Center on a $100,000 cash-only bond.

Brecht Mulvihill, the archdiocese's executive director of communications, said in a statement obtained by EWTN News, "First, we wish to extend our gratitude to the law enforcement officers who responded immediately to this incident, especially to the Shrewsbury Police Department."

"The safety and well-being of the men and women who serve the Church are of the utmost importance, and we pray for an end to the hatred and threats of violence that have become so regrettably prevalent on social media," added Mulvihill.

Catholic churches across the country have been repeatedly targeted for arson, vandalism, and violent attacks in recent years.

For instance, a trans-identifying gunman shot up a Catholic church full of children in Minneapolis on Aug. 27, 2025, injuring 17 and killing two children, ages 8 and 10.

In May, a 40-year-old man claiming to be the "chosen one" allegedly shot up Genevieve’s Catholic Church in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Fortunately, no one was injured in the drive-by shooting.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Video: CNN host shocked by poll showing how Michigan voters really feel about Muslims



Michigan voters are making it clear that there are certain sets of beliefs that don't mesh with their own.

This much was revealed in a recent CNN segment, where a panel was discussing the red-hot Senate race in Michigan between Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed.

'It's just gross.'

When it came time to bring up a poll of Michigan voters' sentiments, the results were so shocking to host Dana Bash that she could barely string a sentence together.

A new Washington Post-Schar School poll conducted September 10-14 asked 803 likely Michigan voters who they would not consider voting for as a presidential candidate.

A whopping 45% of voters said they would not consider voting a Muslim for president.

This left Bash mostly speechless: "45%?!" was all she could verbalize to her panel.

After one panel member compared not wanting to vote for a Muslim to not wanting to vote for a black person, Bash replied, "First of all, it's just gross," regarding the poll.

The host was then mostly at a loss for words while seemingly looking to avoid saying anything that could be perceived as bigoted. However, another panelist pointed out that the 45% number reflected only those who were willing to be honest with a pollster. Therefore, he theorized, the number could be higher.

RELATED: ‘Not someone who can be trusted’: Anti-Trump Detroit newspaper rips El-Sayed in Rogers endorsement

The only group that Michigan voters were less likely to consider for president were atheists, whom 46% said they would not vote for. Jewish candidates were not worthy of a vote for 20% of respondents, while Christians were ruled out by just 7% of those who took the poll.

When digging into the poll numbers, though, the stats do seem to be a bit more partisan than they initially appear.

With 78% of Republican voters saying they would not support a Muslim for president, they are certainly swaying the average versus just 22% of Democrat voters who said the same.

However, more than one in five Democrats saying as much is nothing to sneeze at.

Inversely, just 74% of Democrat voters said they would support a Muslim for president.

RELATED: Islamic Society of North America illegally supported Muslim candidate's campaign, congressman says

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

Citing the same poll, El-Sayed is sitting at 48% support for the Senate seat, while Rogers is at 45% with the margin of error set at +/- 3.9%.

At the same time, 53% of respondents said they preferred Democrats to control the U.S. Senate, while 45% said Republicans.

This certainly points to the idea that while those polled are nearly split on their support of Democrats and Republicans, they are far more aligned in the fact that they are more willing to vote for Christians or Jews than for atheists and Muslims.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Nick Freitas: George W. Bush said ‘Islam is peace’ after 9/11 — but the Quran says differently



In the emotional aftermath of 9/11, President George W. Bush urged Americans not to blame Islam for the terrorist attacks, instead declaring that “Islam is peace.”

Twenty-five years later, BlazeTV host Nick Freitas is revisiting that message and asking whether the country learned the wrong lessons from its darkest day.

“I don’t know if you guys remember this, but shortly after 9/11, U.S. president visits an Islamic center, and he had this to say,” Freitas says.

“These acts of violence against innocence violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace,” Bush told the crowd.


“Let’s see if that’s true,” Freitas says, before reading several passages from the Quran.

“Surah 9:5: ‘Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free,” reads one excerpt.

“If you either convert to Islam or you agree to pay additional taxes because you’re not Islamic, then you can be free,” Freitas explains.

“Surah 9:29: ‘Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are of the People of the Book), until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued,” reads another.

“So again, you’re allowed to survive as a Christian, as a Jew, as somebody else that’s not a Muslim, right, but only if you’re subdued, only if you’re willing to pay additional taxes,” Freitas says.

And in Surah 47:4, Muslims are instructed: “So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens.”

“It’s a religion of peace, man,” Freitas comments. “How do you know it's a religion of peace? Well, George Bush says so.”

“To say otherwise is to be mean. And we’re not allowed to be mean,” he adds.

“Making the Argument with Nick Freitas” is available on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms.

Start watching Nick Freitas NOW at blazetv.com and use the promo code NICK40 for $40 off your BlazeTV+ subscription.

Dolly Parton’s Greatest Legacy Is Her Family

Sticking with your blood isn’t always easy, but as Parton noted in her song ‘Family,’ it’s what we’re called to do.

VIRAL VIDEO: Christian claims Muslims want all Christians and Jews removed from Chicago



When organizers began preparing for a Jesus March in Chicago, they were shocked to find a large Muslim demonstration already taking place at the same location.

“We’ve got Muslims conquering Chicago as well now. They haven’t conquered the entire country, just most of it,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray comments. “So it’s good to see that they’re infiltrating Chicago as well.”

In a video posted to Instagram, Christian Sean Feucht revealed what he stumbled upon when he went to get ready for the Jesus March.

“Can’t make this up, guys, I am standing in the exact place where we are doing a Jesus March in one hour. And look who’s here. A massive march, a massive Muslim march where right now they’re singing over Chicago, ‘Muhammad is the only one. May Allah be lifted up,’” Feucht said.


“They’re declaring that all Jews and all Christians would be removed from this city,” he explained.

“Our cities in our nation are being fought for in the spirit. I don’t know if you need any more example than this right here. We didn’t make this happen,” he continued. “We literally just walked up to the exact place where we’re doing a Jesus March today in Chicago. There's a massive Muslim march where they have been declaring over the city.

“And you know what? The church in America is asleep. I’ve been saying it over the last week. This is a perfect example. The church in America is asleep. We need to wake up,” he added.

“Makes me want to vomit,” executive producer Keith Malinak says on “Pat Gray Unleashed.”

“Yeah, we should wake up here,” Gray adds.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Allie Beth Stuckey responds to AOC blaming ‘hysteria’ for women having kids young



After quietly calling off her engagement 18 months ago, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is pushing back against the idea that women should have children young, arguing that pressure to settle down early can lead women into relationships with men who don't respect or support them.

“A lot of these people who pressure women into having kids at a young age or trying to create hysteria around being too old, etc. What they’re trying to do is rush you into having a relationship with a loser,” AOC said in a rant on Instagram.

“By a loser, I mean someone who doesn’t respect women, someone who doesn’t respect you, someone who doesn’t treat you well, someone that doesn’t support your growth,” she added.

But BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey notes there’s a crucial distinction between telling women to settle and acknowledging the biological realities of fertility.


“I don’t know if she’s trying to passive aggressively talk about her ex-fiance. Certainly, no one would accuse them of rushing into anything,” Stuckey comments, noting that the pair were together for “like 15 years.”

However, Stuckey doesn’t totally disagree with AOC.

“I certainly have not given that advice that you should just settle down and marry whoever comes along. I am so glad that I waited until I knew without a doubt that this is the person that I wanted to be with for the rest of my life, and I didn’t have any doubt in my mind,” she says.

“I recommend that if you are a Christian woman, that you find a Christian man who loves the Lord with all of his heart, mind, soul, and strength, and who loves you, has the same values as you, who will cherish you,” she continues.

However, what AOC does seem to be saying that Allie disagrees with is that “you can’t possibly find that person young and settle down young without settling for some kind of misogynist.”

“I mean, that’s just crazy,” Stuckey says.

“We’re just pointing out that biology is real. It is real. It’s not paranoia. It’s just wisdom,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.