As Morgan Hill moves toward the 2026 election, big national debates about religion and government are showing up close to home. Questions about democracy, religious neutrality, and the influence of Christian-nationalist politics now shape how local leaders talk about “separation of church and state,” and how voters decide what kind of city government they want for the future.
At the 2024 AAUW mayoral forum, Mayor Mark Turner said that separation of church and state is meant to “protect the church from the state, not the state from the church.” He argued that people of faith should be able to bring their beliefs into government and warned that the real threat is government restrictions on churches.
When another councilmember cautioned that mixing religion and government could put women’s rights and healthcare decisions at risk, Turner replied that there is “no mixing of church and state” in Morgan Hill and dismissed deeper worries as going “down this rabbit hole.”
This view reflects a common conservative religious argument: that separation protects churches but doesn’t limit religion’s influence on government.
But many legal and civic scholars see it as a two-way boundary that keeps both institutions independent. The question for voters in 2026 is whether Turner’s one-sided version of separation fits today’s reality, when the Christian-nationalist movements are openly trying to erase that boundary.
One of the most visible examples is Project 2025, a political plan from leading national figures who call the United States a “Christian nation.” Its authors reject the idea of church-state separation and say the church should guide government. They use this belief to justify banning abortion, overturning marriage equality, limiting contraception and portraying political opponents as enemies of God instead of fellow citizens.
At its core, this vision replaces a pluralistic democracy, one based on equal rights and the rule of law, with a religious system where a particular reading of the Bible takes precedence over the Constitution.
Turner’s comments reflect this trend at a local level. By focusing only on protecting religion from government interference, he normalizes the idea that religious influence on public policy is harmless, while ignoring how it could harm individual rights or civic equality.
As candidates for mayor and council prepare their campaigns, Morgan Hill voters have a right to demand clear answers. Good questions for every candidate include:
• Do you believe Morgan Hill and the United States should stay religiously neutral, that our laws should come from the Constitution and shared civic values, not any one religion’s teachings?
• If your personal religious beliefs ever conflict with a resident’s constitutional rights (such as reproductive healthcare or equal treatment for LGBTQ+ people), will you commit to putting those rights first?
• Will you oppose any effort to bring Project 2025-style ideas, like “Christian nation” language, faith-based restrictions on books or healthcare, or religious tests for office into local government, schools, or law enforcement even if presented as “protecting values” or “supporting faith communities”?
No matter what direction voters choose in 2026, asking these questions helps ensure that Morgan Hill’s government stands firm on constitutional principles and remains a safeguard, not a gateway for national movements seeking to weaken the constitutional separation of church and state.
Jennifer Blalack
Morgan Hill
