What a load of crap! None of that is correct.
It absolutely was not founded as a secular country. Might want to do a little research on when the establishment clause was incorporated.
What document was written in 1776? What did it indeed mention?
Come on man!
Yes yes we all know about that, it does not change the fact that the US was not created as a Christian nation.
If god and Christianity was so integral to the creation of the United States it would be logical for the constitution to reference that but it does not.
Feel free to have the last word on this because this discussion will just go nowhere.
2 Likes
That’s your proof? When was the establisment clause incorporated?
Do you? Do you really?
If secularism was so integral to the creation of the United States it would be logical for the constitution to reference that but it does not.
It is not “nation’s charter”, it is Oklahoma’s charter. And I highly doubt it’s the first.
And sanity prevails in the Oklahoma Supreme Court by a vote of 6 to 3.
The court ruled the funding violates:
- Oklahoma statutes
- Oklahoma Constitution
- Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.
While the United States Supreme Court could theoretically overturn the final holding, it has no jurisdiction over the first two holdings, thus the judgement of the Oklahoma Supreme Court will stand, since the United States Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the first two findings. For all intents and purposes, this is the final word.
Glad to see this ended by the States courts. Good work.
Opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. And as a correction, the vote was 6 to 2, with one Justice recused.
The Attorney General of Oklahoma actually brought the case AGAINST the religious charter school as an original action in the State Supreme Court. The Respondents were the Oklahoma Charter School Board.
The court’s findings were as related in my previous post.
Good news!
“This decision is a tremendous victory for religious liberty. The framers of the U.S. Constitution and those who drafted Oklahoma’s Constitution clearly understood how best to protect religious freedom: by preventing the State from sponsoring any religion at all," Drummond said in a statement following the ruling.
And now, the Supreme Court has affirmed without opinion based on an equally divided Court. So not precedential except in Oklahoma based only on the OK Supreme Court decision. Of course, no indication of who voted with the “liberal wing,” but I have a theory. I suspect that it was Roberts (that’s not a big leap) in order to prevent the opinion from falling to Alito or Thomas. I think what could have happened if Roberts had made it a 5-3 is that he would have assigned the opinion to himself, but that he would not get a majority of the six “conservative” justices, but that Alito or Thomas would have. That might have resulted in an opinion that Roberts would at best join in the result, resulting in no majority opinion anyway.
