Ok, as you know, I take a very expansive view of the Free Exercise Clause and a very narrow view of the Establishment Clause.
I have supported historical religious monuments. I have supported artists and other creative professionals who would deny services on religious grounds.
But this is just so ■■■■■■■ far over the top as to be laughable, if it wasn’t going to be so ■■■■■■■ expensive for Oklahoma taxpayers.
Even the Republican Oklahoma Attorney General, who is legally obligated to defend this in court, has privately condemned this proposal, although he will defend it as he is legally and ethically obligated to do as Attorney General.
The lawsuits are being drawn up as we speak.
This, of course, cannot stand. Particularly as it is SECTARIAN religious education (Catholic). As I generally eschew the Establishment Clause, I would oppose this as a violation of the Free Exercise Rights of the Oklahoma people, as non-Catholics (including non-theists) must now support the teaching of the Catholic religion.
Hard to say what will happen at the District Court level until the case is filed and we know who the Judge will be.
Prospects look good for this being struck down at the 10th Circuit. Only one Judge there that might be ■■■■■■■ dumb enough to actually try to uphold this turd.
I don’t think so, even in light of the recent Blaine Amendment cases such as Espinoza. While these cases permit certain public money to flow to religious institutions, it cannot be for patently religious reasons. For example, religious schools can receive material for play yards and other such stuff.
Also, if the Supreme Court was to approve this, they will open a can of worms that they will quickly wish they had left shut.
Suppose an Islamist school wants public money. Or Mormons. Or Scientology. Or Satanists.
They Satanist thing has already come true, with a several schools being forced to allow Satan Clubs on an equal basis with Christian Clubs.
Now extend that to a whole ■■■■■■■ school.
Here’s how I think this will actually go down.
A District Judge will get this and could rule either way, given there are some Trump Judges in Oklahoma who might go for this.
This will go to the 10th Circuit, which I strongly believe will rule against this law.
The Supreme Court (not wanting to open that can of worms I mentioned) will deny certiorari.
It appears that we are going to see this proposition tested in real time. And it looks like the Christian Nationalists like their chances. You will also note that they don’t aeem concerned wth your posted objections.
“When you try to do this, you’re gonna end up in a lawsuit,” Barton said. “Good for you, because we’ve got all these groups waiting to take these lawsuits to court. The courts have already made it clear we’re going to win these lawsuits, somebody’s just got to take it to court.”
The answer is giving parents who don’t use public schools a tax rebate to pay for their private schools.
But, I’m all for the 10 commandment in schools. The founding of the country was as a christian nation though they didn’t want a govt church like the King was imposing. Basically the schools teach atheism right now and look at the results. Flash mobs stealing and worse.
Roberts’ vote was a surprise for sure, but I don’t think this ruling is indicative of how a religious case would break; Kavanaugh almost certainly would return to the conservatives
No they do not teach aethism. My kids who went to school here in the US learnt about all the worlds major religions. The none belief in god or a supreme being is an equally valid perspective. Because someone is aethist does not mean they cannot be productive useful and contributing members of society and be inherently good people.
You want the 10 Commandments in school, get ready to see the 75 Good Manners from the Quran or the 10 Commandments of Real Satanism.
Plus the US was founded as a secular society and form of government with freedom of religion an integral part of that system. YMMV.
“America’s Founders were committed to the idea that religion (by which virtually all of them meant Christianity) was necessary for public happiness and political prosperity. This view was so widespread that James Hutson has called it “the Founders’ syllogism.”[33] The key question with respect to particular establishments at the state level was whether they helped or hurt the faith.”
If the word secular has to appear in the constitution to make it a secular nation then the omission of the word christian also has to be there for it to be formed as a nation built on christianity.
The founders wanted a society free of religious persecution which meant the basis for that society would guarantee the freedom of religion with no one religion taking precedence.
No one is saying that a Christian perspective did not shape the nation but to say that christianity is the underpinning of the United States is not accurate.
Yes I know history but never claimed to be an expert. You are right destablishment in states did not happen until the 1800 but the US constituion is what the United States of America was built on.
The fact that deestablishment did not happen until well after 1776 does not change the fact that the USA as a country was founded as a secular nation which enshrined freedom of religion.
I have already said that Christianity has helped shape the United States but that is very different from asserting the US was founded as a Christian nation.
The shaping of our country is not a one and done event. It continued after 1776 and continues to this day.
