Oklahoma OKs The Nation’s First Religious Charter School

[theod]

Weird that in the stated, overarching interest of protecting children from woke indoctrination, the state of OK will make a school arrangement with public funds with a church running an international pedophile coverup for decades. What could go wrong?

[caltg]

@old_guru

I think you may have got it. I do not know, given the makeup of the courts, where this might go, but GollyGee, this is so against the First Amendment, I do not see how even Oklahoma dummies can justify this.

Well at least this stupid maneuver by the OK legislature might provide some major grist for the Supremes.

[daled]

@stranger

The board membership was changed the day before the vote. One person was removed and replaced so that the application would pass.

And the number of surprised people is…Zero

[tpr]

@socalista

Would you say this is a fair summary?

Yup.

@socalista

Not sure if you’re agreeing that’s the question or telling me that I’m wrong in thinking that wasn’t in fact the meaning of the establishment clause?

It seemed to me that your original post misunderstood what the establishment clause forbids. You originally said, “The government isn’t establishing a religion here. The religion already exists.” That statement misdescribes what does and does not count as “establishing” religion. And, we can see that the Lemon test makes no mention of whether the religion in question already exists or who created it.

I think you’re right when you put it like this:

Question would seem to be whether we’re going to pump taxpayer money into religious “education”

I think the problem was how you imagined the establishment clause engaging with that question.

[socalista]

@tpr

It seemed to me that your original post misunderstood what the establishment clause forbids.

Entirely likely. I was hoping someone would come along to address that. Are you interested in helping me sort that out or not?

[tpr]

I think I’ve done all I can – IANAL, we’re already at basically the limit of my knowledge, and I suspect you’ve got it well in hand by now.

[charlie6]

Manufacturing conservatives at public cost, the wet dream of the radical right.

[daled]

@tpr

The question is: can government give public assets to private cults? The answer has historically been “no.”

The christo-fascist right wing clearly interprets the 1st amendment to mean that the government cannot tell a church/religion what to do or what is “right,” or anything, really. It’s right there in the Constitution along with the right to own a tank, if one chooses.

HOWEVER, the Constitutions does not/cannot prevent “my” church/religion from telling the government what the government must do, and enforce, based on what “my” church says is right for everybody–not just members of “my” church. Because if everyone isn’t following “my” church’s/religion’s teaching, that [somehow] infringes “my” rights to believe and practice “my” religion.

That’s right, you eating a donut while “I’m” on a diet is discriminatory and oppressive to “me.”

[drtv]

Completely Illegal.

[drtv]

@isakindamagic

They want Fed money.

This is absolutely true.

[drtv]

@socalista

Question would seem to be whether we’re going to direct taxpayer money into religious “education”

Question would seem to be whether we’re going to

ILLEGALLY

direct taxpayer money into religious “education”

[econ]

As a “indoctrinated” student of Catholic education through High School, I have a vivid memory of entertaining the very notion of a non-subsidy of “private education”: Why oh why, couldn’t my parents get some “tax credits” equivalent to their non-use of tax-payers monies of not utilizing “public education”?

I remember thinking that it seemed wrong at those early years; that “we” saved “Tax Payers” money by not utilizing Public Education, and that my parents deserved some monetary credit.

Oh my God, I must confess: what an entirely self-serving and naive idea of the true value of Public Education.

I’m here to confess my wrongness!

I have been properly, upbraided and, more importantly, more a proponent of
the real value of Public Education.: sorry, my Catholic Education didn’t endow me with any value that so many Public Education students were easily able to evince.

[stradivarius50t3]

@tpr

That’s not what the “establishment clause” is understood to mean. No serious legal scholar thinks that the Constitution forbids govt from inventing a religion while permitting govt to promote an existing religion.

The first amendment (among many other things) prohibits the Federal Government from declaring a particular religion to be the national Church (or Synagogue or Temple or…). Remember that many of the various colonies were founded by particular faith communities (Massachusetts had its Puritans, Pennsylvania had its Quakers, Rhode Island was Catholic, etc.) to allow them to escape the reach of the Anglican High Church back in England. They had plenty of experience with religious oppression in their recent histories (not quite living memory in most case) and if their brand of Christianity wasn’t going to be the national brand, then they didn’t want a national brand. That was the thing everyone could agree on, so they banished the establishment of a national (official) church.

That understanding has expanded to forbid the government (until recently) to fund anything having to do with religious activities.

ETA: The Lemon test was mentioned above: that is actually pretty recent (1971 merits decision based on a 1968 law). I think the peak for the “wall of separation” folks was the Supreme Court decision that banned school prayer (Engel v. Vitale, 1962). Things have been eroding since then.

[stradivarius50t3]

@drtv

Completely Illegal.

Since when has that stopped them?

[drtv]

@stradivarius50t3

Since when has that stopped them?

Well, never.

This WILL end up in court.