| Texas Freedom Network | |
| Abbreviation: | TFN |
| Formation: | 1995 |
| Type: | Non-profit |
| Status: | 501(c)(4) Educational Organization |
| Purpose: | Religious Freedom, Civil Liberties |
| Headquarters: | Austin, Texas |
| Region Served: | Texas |
| Membership: | 19,000 members |
| Leader Title: | President/Executive Director |
| Leader Name: | Val Benavidez |
| Affiliations: | Texas Freedom Network Education Fund |
The Texas Freedom Network (TFN) is a Texas organization which describes its goals as protecting religious freedom, defending civil liberties, and strengthening public schools in the state. It works to counter the activities of the Christian right.[1] Founded in 1996 by Cecile Richards, the daughter of former Governor Ann W. Richards.[2] The group had 19,000 members by 2004.[3]
Under Richards, the organization focused mainly on education, but under the leadership of Samantha Smoot (1998–2004), it broadened its focus to include hate crimes and gay rights.[3] As of July 2023, Val Benavidez is the president.
The TFN has opposed the attempts of Don McLeroy and other religious conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education to mandate that Texas high schools offer Bible classes and change history textbook standards, arguing that many of the proposed changes violate religious freedom and the separation of church and state.[4] TFN has also closely followed the activities of the Board of Education and activists on other education issues, such as the teaching of evolution in public schools.[5]
In 2005 TFN criticized the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools curriculum for promoting a fundamentalist Christian view and violating religious freedom. It commissioned a report by Southern Methodist University biblical scholar Mark A. Chancey,[6] which found:
See also: Strengths and weaknesses of evolution. In a survey commissioned by TFN, "94% of Texas scientists indicated that claimed 'weaknesses' of evolution are not valid scientific objections to evolution (with 87% saying that they 'strongly disagree' that such weaknesses should be considered valid)."[7] [8]