On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to review a potentially blockbuster religion clause case in Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond. However, there is a catch. While the lawyers representing St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School may need every vote they can get in this heavily contested area, they may have to prevail without Justice Amy Coney Barrett who recused herself for an unstated reason.
The case could bring clarity to an area long mired in 5-4 decisions. The question presented is “whether a state violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious.”
The basis for the recusal is a mystery. Barrett was on the faculty at Notre Dame University and has close ties to the institution. Notre Dame Law Professor Nicole Garnett has been involved in the case and the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Clinic is on the brief for St. Isidore.
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is a Roman Catholic institution focused on digital learning.
The lower court ruled that such funding of a religious school is unconstitutional. Before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Oklahoma Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, prevailed in arguing that the charter school board violated state law, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. He insisted that the board should not have chartered the school because “St. Isidore’s educational philosophy is to establish and operate the school as a Catholic school.” He also opposed review by the Supreme Court, warning that the school intends to “serve the evangelizing mission of the church.”
The case could produce one of the most consequential decisions on the separation of Church and State in decades. Given her past interest and writing in the area, it would be ironic for Barrett to miss this ruling.
It is reminiscent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recusal in the Harvard affirmative action case due to her close ties to that institution. However, for Jackson, it was immaterial since she was allowed to vote in the sister case involving the University of North Carolina.
The case will be argued in April.
Here is the lower court decision: St. Isidore Opinion
I thought Trump ended DEI and Affirmative Action.
Why is 12% of the population in 100% of the scenes on TV and in movies.
Because Trump does not have power over private actors (except where they are taking governemnt funds).
Hollywood can discriminate as it pleases.
While DEI is DIEing everywhere – it is dying in private business because it demonstrable makes workplaces WORSE not better.
Trump’s EO bar all discrimination – including reverse descrimination (afirmative action and DEI) in government, or by government contractors, or by institutions funded by government.
* Obama isn’t a citizen. he’s kenyan asva derivative of his father. His mother was an indonesian citizen. He was adopted by soetoro. He returned to the usa before age 18 to claim his citizenship and birth but the derivative for us citizenship was an indonesian. There was nothing to hang it on. Harris also returned before 18 to claim her citizenship and did because her father had naturalized.
It’s obvious but so sneaky
* ^^ further the case about Trump removed from ballots before SCOTUS and the reason president isn’t listed in the 14th further clarifies what meant by “natural born citizen” in presidential clause. No confederate having sworn allegiance to the confederacy could become president because they had lost their usa citizenship. Now you know derivatives and natural born.
Should clear it up.
Goes to natural born as definition…
“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”
– Vladimir Lenin
Actually, a Jesuit said it first.
This passes for intelligence in the Senate?
We’re talking about people that were beating officers with fire hydrants, with metal batons,” the reporter replied. “Is that acceptable to you?”
Tuberville said beating police officers with pipes is not acceptable but …
“But I didn’t see it,” he said. And then he gave an actual shrug.
Not quite believing what was coming from Tuberville’s mouth, another reporter asked him, what did he mean, he didn’t see it?
“I didn’t see it,” he repeated. “I didn’t see it. You’ll have to show me. I didn’t see that.”
Another reporter in the scrum asked whether he believed it happened. There’s video, after all.
“I didn’t believe it because I didn’t see it,” he said again. “Now, if I see it, I would believe it, but I didn’t see any of that video.”
Has he seen a Snow Leopard? Do they exist?
Dude, the world has moved on. You should move on too.
The video shows someone throwing a fire extinguisher.
I have not seen video of anyone beating an officer with a fire extinguisher.
The only batons I have seen being used were by officers of the CP.
You talk about Tuberville being stupid – yet, you demonstrate exactly why he said what he did.
Do you have video of anyone actually beating multiple officers with a fire extingusher ?
Or even ONE officer ?
Do you have video of ANYONE beating an officier with a metal baton ?
There is aparently 51,000 hours of Capitol security video.
There is probably another thousand or so of hours from media.
We CONSTANTLY get those of you on the left making claims that there is video that shows some claim of yours.
If and when such video is produced it shows something significantly different.
As to ACTUAL video.
There protestors were peaceful until the CP fired a tear gas grenade AT THEMSELVES, and then lobbed one into the crowd, which then moved away from the grenaded in all directions.
Including towards the west tunnel entrance of the capitol.
Those protestors moving away from the CS Grenade and towards the West entrance – or being pushed towards the west entrance by protestors behind them fleeing the CS tear gass grenade were met with CP officer using night sticks to club them.
And THAT is where the violence started.
Are the actions of everysingle Protestor justified ? Probably not.
Are there any actions by any protestor that deserve more than 4 years in the DC hell hole of a jail ?
Absolutely not.
Are the CP officers who murdered Alishi Babbet or Rose Boylan facing justice ? Nope.
Are the officers who fired a CS tear gas grenaded into a peaceful crowd that was not doing ANYTHING illegal at that time being prosecuted or disciplined ?
NOPE.
Are the officers who unarguably lied under oath repeatedly – before the J6 committee and other tribunals being prosecuted ?
NOPE.
Regardles of what various J6 protestors May or May not have actually done – did any of them get a fair trial.
Not a chance. They were overcharged, denied excouplatory evidence by the prosecutors and judges (Brady material). Had to deal with public defenders that were forcing them to plead guilty. Had to deal with a DOJ that was shutting down any means of crowdsourcing Funding of private lawyers – you know – Like Harris funding the BLM rioters.
They were denied bail – a constitutional right. We expect prosecutors to be biased, But judges are supposed to be neutral and juries are not supposed to prejudge the case.
By almost every measure of due process and fair trial these defendants had their rights abused
A long list of constitutional amendments were violated.
So NO I do not have a problem with these pardons.
NOr do I have a problem with Bondi’s DOJ investigating the prosecutors and judges.
Whether you beleive these people were guilty or not – they were all entitled to a fair trial that they did not get.
If you have actual video of anyone using a fire extinguisher to club a CP officer, or using metal battons on CP officers – please produce it.
I have seen pretty much every foot of the video the left likes to showcase including the false color vidoe that appears to show the capitol burning.
There was arson in the BLM riots., There was Arson at the Portland riots for 100 nights straight.
There was arson at the CHAS succession – presumably BLM protestors declaring part of seattle to be an independent country counts as actual insurrection.
There was Arson at the protest that smashed down the WH wall and resulted in more Park Police and Secret Service injuries that J6 – and not a single prosecution.
But there was no arson at J6 – though you would not know that from the altered video of the left.
Regardless J6 is a massive error on the part of the Congress and particularly the house, and peolosi.
If the J6 protestors were claiming that the best election in US history one that nearly everyone excepted was a lawless fraud,
They would still be entitled to protest the election and petition congress to refuse to certify it.
The first amendment has no clause that grants you the right to speech, to assemble to petition govenrment ONLY if you are right.
Or only if you are protesting conservative conduct.
The right of these protestors to protest is undeniable.
There right to do so at the PRE-EMINENT public forum in the entire world is undeniable.
It is the duty of Government to not merely protect itself and congress – that is actually SECONDARY, to their duty to assure that the protestors were able to do so safely.
To the full extent the constitution allows.
Congress was in session – therefore Govenrment was OBLIGATED to allow peaceful protests to anything congress was doing. That means the protestors MUST be allowed INSIDE the capitol.
Again a long history of first amendment cases, guarantees that protestors can not be denied access to a governemnt created public forum.
All restrictions on protests – even on the surface begnign ones that have the effect of denying the right to protest are as applied unconstitutional.
Pelosi did not have the power to shutdown the capitol if that thwarted protests.
The right/power of congress to protect its own safety – whether from covid or protestors does NOT trump first amendment rights.
Congress had the means to assure its own safety. It could easily have allowed protestors into the capitol in small groups, it could have searched them before allowing them in or required that the leave bags and purses.
It could have created a buffer zone arround the capitol and had security checks done on all people entering.
If the CP did not have the manpower to do this – the national guard was available to them.
There were sufficient national guard that every protestor at the capitol could have had 2 national guardsmen to escort them through the capitol.
Before you pretend that somehow I am wrong, I would suggest that you review the legal history of the 1968 chicago DNC protests as well as the Kent State Massacre.
Though there are numerous other examples.
I would furhter note that the 1968 DNC convention was inside a private space – while the j6 Protests took place at the most important public forum for free speech in the world.
Those of you on the left with your absolute total idiocy regarding the first amendment completely fail to grasp that there is no constitutional power to stop a protest based on the views of those protesting.
We can not prevent protests to election certification, we can not prevent protests favoring child sexual abuse and child pornography.
Any prote4stors of any viewpoint MUST be allowed to protest at any government created public forum, PERIOD.
Those of you on the left created January 6th when you tried to stop that.
Mr. Say, that was inspiring!
I am giving you a standing ovation right now!!!
Dear Cowardly Anonymous Democrat: “We’re talking about people that were beating officers with fire hydrants, with metal batons,” the reporter replied. “Is that acceptable to you?”
Sign the rioter up for Delta Force the “reporter” identified who has the strength to to tear up a fire hydrant and then use it to beat people with! That’s Sgt. Fury in the living flesh!
Anonymous: What “reporter” are you quoting? Where did he ask the EXACT SAME QUESTION just a few weeks EARLIER than J6of Bribery Biden and Senator DEI Hire, when Democrat street thugs in Antifa and Black Liars And Marxists were storming the White House and attempting to murder Secret Service and Capitol Police with Molotov Cocktails in order to get through them to Trump?
This is the Soviet Democrat-Marxist Mainstream Media Propaganda Complex in action, applying the Democrat Different Double Standards to their “reporting”.
And cowardly Anonymous Democrats just love it when they do so.
I hope they continue to operate in exactly this manner right through the midterms in 2026 and the next presidential election in 2028.
In fact, double down and go for broke: pick the DEI Hire to run for president again in 2028!
Old Airborne Dog
Back in the early days of our Country, worship services were held in the Capitol building.
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House–a practice that continued until after the Civil War–were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a “crowded audience.” Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson’s actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist “a wall of separation between church and state.” In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a “national” religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government. https://loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
January 1806 a female evangelist delivered a sermon….gracious me.
lgb
mi
el
?
Don’t be shy…spit it out.
Explain?
Explain what? My initials?
That’s what they are, my initials. First, middle, maiden, and last name initials.
What did you think it was?
7?
Most have 3.
It’s four names — first name, middle name, maiden name, and last name.
I use the first and last letter of three of the names.
🙂
I love a mystery, and I love its solution even more.
I’m puzzled. There’s no mystery, it’s actually very boring. I’m just not creative at all.
Trust me. lgbmiel is a mysterious nom de plume, especially in the realm of the anonymouses.
Thank you. Your comment put a big smile on my face
Those are great examples lgbmiel, because they illustrate that the founders didn’t intend 1A to create “separation,” rather, they only wanted to prevent Congress from passing certain laws (as reflected in the precise wording of the Establishment Clause).
Thank you.
Yes, the Founders weren’t saying that no part of government could be associated with religion or religious services. As I said in my other comment, many states had state religions and sought to prevent federal interference.
And that really was the whole purpose of the Establishment Clause, to prevent the national government from overriding those state-level established churches. Interesting how it has now been interpreted to mean the exact opposite, ie, to prohibit state-level churches.
SCOTUS changing our Constitution again.
The Incorporation Doctrine.
SCOTUS decided that the due process clause — some say the privileges and immunities clause — in the 14th Amendment ‘incorporates’ some — not all — of the BoR.
You can’t be serious…
You’re making me crazy. Religions don’t exist without Religions. Education exists without religion. Want to the cost skyrocket?
What are you talking about??
Do you even know yourself??
As I said in my other comment, many states had state religions and sought to prevent federal interference.
Yes M’am; you put up some very good posts on this subject that reflect back to how the first Congress dealing with what would become the Bill of Rights hashed out the wording that became the First Amendment. When the original Ten Amendments were ratified and became part of the Constitutional law of America, only two of those original 13 states did NOT have a state religion/church.
With all the different state churches in play and needing to get the states to sign to get on board, they had to deal with the potentially fatal issue of the federal government giving one state’s church supremacy over all states.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibited the federal government from choosing one denomination over the others as the federal church. Jefferson wrote specifically about that and clearly showed his agreement with the First Amendment as written – not a “Separation of Church And State” freedom FROM religion.
The wording of the Free Exercise Clause further shackled the federal government. Not only is the federal government prohibited from choosing one religion over the others, it is prohibited the federal government the right to limit, regulate or interfere with religion and religious expression. It secured for citizens’ their right to worship (or choose not to), to found a church, establish a parochial school, speak their religious convictions, etc..
Looking at the Congressional Record of the first Congress, the plain language meaning of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses are incredibly easy to understand, as well as the reasons for why they are stated as they are.
Old Airborne Dog
Thank you so much. I have to say I really enjoy reading your comments.
* true, thus private religious schools. There’s not a law against it.
Gaslight
Oh? The Library of Congress is lying??
You poor dear.
Yes, digitized mam.
You’re unhinged.
You’re the tickled pink and noggins person? Yes, mam, gaslighting. It’s all digitized and altered.
Try some ginko tea.
Yikes!
You need some strong psych meds.
These are historical records.
lgbmiel copied and pasted: Jefferson’s actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist “a wall of separation between church and state.”
Well, that version of Jefferson would help the “Freedom FROM Religion” crowd wanting to use Jefferson for their excuse for not reading the plain language of the First Amendment. Those that turn to that single Danbury Baptists letter from Jefferson do so while turning a blind eye to the rest of his writings relating to this issue.
Just the letters Jefferson wrote to his friend Dr. Benjamin Rush, a co-signer of the Declaration Of Independence and a devout Christian, clearly show Jefferson feared the federal government usurping ANY authority to dictate or create policy for religions and religious activities.
That’s the wall Jefferson was writing about. This isn’t just an opinion I cobbled together; this is an opinion shared with numerous other Constitutional scholars and published authors relating to this “Separation of Church and State” that FDR’s fellow Kluxxer Justice Hugo Black cobbled together that flies in the face of the previous 150+ years of SCOTUS jurisprudence.
It’s typical of Democrats: if they don’t want it or don’t value it, then those who do want it or value it shouldn’t be able to have it.
Old Airborne Dog.
It’s typical of Democrats: if they don’t want it or don’t value it, then those who do want it or value it shouldn’t be able to have it.
Sigh. Yes. Typical. Reminds me of their illogical gun argument. They don’t want guns around them, their houses, their neighborhoods, etc., so no one can have one. Cause they don’t feel safe. Leftists don’t like something, no one can have it. OTOH, if they want something – abortion – they will NOT be denied. They tell us….Don’t like abortions, don’t have one, they say. Refusing to allow us to say…don’t like guns, don’t own one. Hypocrites.
Actually, reminds me of my sister, lol. Older sister. Always bossed me around.
I have a feeling this case won’t have a huge long term impact. It seems to me the school choice issue will ultimately be decided in favor of choice through vouchers and tax credits, the latter being both at the state and federal levels. Vouchers usable at religious schools was upheld by SCOTUS in 2002.
Well let’s hope it’s catholic because Latin America is such a success.
“Congress shall make no law respecting…” the 1962 Warren Court decision was fundamentally flawed because to deny or prohibit is to “establish.” I think that can be reasonably argued. So, to deny funding to a charter school simply because it is of a religious bent or a religious nature or religious at its core is absolutely wrong. What’s a shame is that we today have American minds incapable of logically parsing language. While playing politics with long established American rights.
Jonathan: I don’t think it is a “mystery” that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has recused from the St. Isidore case. By her own admission ACB is a “faithful Catholic”. She belongs to a small secretive Catholic sect, the “People of Praise”, where the “heads” of the sect are all males. Women members play a subservient role. PP falls outside mainstream Catholicism. ACB apparently doesn’t want her own faith to be perceived as a bias had she not recused.
Recusal is required whenever a conflict of interest creates the appearance of bias. ACB knows the problem of conflicts of interest within the Court–the fact that Justices Thomas and Alito have refused to recuse in cases in which they have a direct conflict. The public no longer trusts the court to be fair and impartial. Sensitive to that reality ACB no doubt decided to recuse in the St. Isidore case because that case will test the limits of how far the court is willing to go to endorse religion–in particular the Catholic religion. Separation of church and state is one of the bedrocks of our Constitution embodied in the Establishment Clause. In a series of decisions the conservatives on the Court have eroded that basic principle. In the St. Isidore case those limits will be tested even further.
The Oklahoma Constitution (Art. 2, Sec. 5) prohibits the use of public money to support religious institutions. In 2023 the OK AG issued an opinion against taxpayer-funded religious schools. In defiance of that opinion the OK Statewide Virtual Center School Board approved the St. Isidore virtual charter school. AG Drummond sued. The OK SC took up the case and ruled in favor of the AG. In a 5-2 decision the court stated: “Under Oklahoma law, a charter school must be non-sectarian. However, St. Isidore will evangelize the Catholic faith as part of its school curriculum while sponsored by the State. This State’s establishment of a religious charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the Establishment Clause”. This is the case the Archdioceses of Oklahoma City and Tulsa want the SC to reverse. They want taxpayers to fund a religious school while remaining free of any state laws and regulations relating to sexual orientation and gender identity.
There are 5 conservative Catholic Justices on the Court–Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Without Barrett it will be difficult to find a majority to support taxpayer funding of religious schools. As a conservative Catholic yourself, and one who apparently supports use of taxpayer money to fund Catholic schools, it is no wonder why you are so upset with Coney Barrett’s recusal!
This shouldn’t even be a close call.
Jonathan: I don’t think it is a “mystery” that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has recused from the St. Isidore case. By her own admission ACB is a “faithful Catholic”.
Dennis McIntyre celebrated, defended, and voted for the “faithful Catholics” named Bribery Biden and Commissar Pelosi as they devoutly pushed the non-existent “right” to elective birth control abortions up until the moment of birth. In complete opposition to the tenants of “their” Catholic faith.
However Dennis McIntyre’s black atheist commie soul hates ANY Christian, Muslim, Jew, or agnostic, not just Catholic, who rejects the nonexistent constitutional right to an elective birth control abortion.
It’s no “mystery” Dennis hates Comey-Barrett almost as much as he hates Professor Turley while worshiping and pledging fealty to Catholics like Bribery Biden and Commissar Pelosi.
Old Airborne Dog
The OK constitution denies the U.S. constitutional right to freely exercise religious freedom and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
Freedom and choice through vouchers does not constitute “the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Ok genius, so the freaking kid is the money launderer.
I’m out of this stoopid conversation…
Good, cause you aren’t making any sense.
“To say that sex is simple and easily defined – and defined at conception – is factually incorrect.”
But why let facts get in the way of trimps BS.
Sex: male and female, is defined from conception. Gender (i.e. sex-correlated attributes): masculine and feminine, is determined with an evolutionary process. Transgender is a spectrum that includes attributes (e.g. sexual orientation) that are in a state or process of divergence from normal.
There is XY, XX…and
XXY (Klinefelter syndrome)
XXX (Trisomy X)
XYY
Trisomies are the most common X and Y aneuploid conditions. Less common are “tetrasomies,” which denote the presence of four sex chromosomes:
XXYY
XXXY
XXXX
Still rarer are the “pentasomies,” indicating five sex chromosomes:
XXXXY
XXXXX
Science is a b**ch isn’t it.
Would you favor chromosomal testing for anyone who wants to transition (or play on the opposite sex’s team), and prohibit it for anyone who cannot demonstrate a chromosomal abnormality such as those you listed above?
Hell no. What business is it of mine?
I thought the trump party stood for freedom. How come the sudden interest in controlling what other people can do with their bodies?
Men in women’s competitive sports? Taking away their chances at an athletic scholarship? In women’s locker rooms and showers? In their prison cells? Minors being misled? Into a life altering decision?
That’s what I am mainly concerned about. If an adult wants to transition and have no adverse effect on others, that’s a different story. That’s not what I’m asking about, although I realize I didn’t make that clear the first time. But if you want to answer me further, assume I am referring to the circumstances in the paragraph above.
The government already controls what we do with our bodies in many ways.
How come the sudden interest in controlling what other people can do with their bodies?
Why do feckless cowardly Anonymous Democrats think they can get away with claiming it’s Trump that was forcing women and little girls to subjugate themselves to men demanding a nonexistent right to display their male wedding tackle to women and little girls in female change rooms?
Why do these cowardly Anonymous Democrats think they have the credibility to claim it’s Trump – not Bribery Biden and DEI Hire Harris – who forced women to allow men to use their male bodies to compete against women in women’s sports?
Why do these cowardly Anonymous Democrats lie to themselves with a belief they have even the slightest shred of Anonymous credibility?
Old Airborne Dog
Good point! If Dennis McIntyre wants religious tests applied to SCOTUS nominees, chromosome tests are equally legitimate for Dennis McIntyre and other Democrat trannies saying that they are qualified to cosplay as women in order to legally hang their male wedding tackle out on display in little girls changerooms.
Old Airborne Dog
How many trannies have any of these anomalies? What percentage?
Why the sudden interest in science?
Should have thought about that before you voted for the fact free trump fascist sexist party.
This is not a fact free administration. Fact is what the cult leader says it is.
This is now a fact free administration
Sorry for the typo that completely lies about the trump administration
I asked my friend AI!
According to research, a small percentage of transgender individuals, estimated to be around 1-2%, exhibit abnormal chromosomes, which is slightly higher than the general population, with studies showing a range from 0.88% to 2.3% depending on the cohort analyzed; however, it’s important to note that having abnormal chromosomes does not directly cause someone to be transgender.
‘Transgender’ is a mental disorder, not a physical one. It is based entirely on the person’s feelings.
Floyd, my guess – and it is only a guess – is that only a tiny fraction actually have chromosomal anomalies. Instead it is a matter of social contagion. This is evidenced by the drastically different rates depending on geographic location. That’s why I posed the question of whether it should be allowed only if the person can demonstrate a real chromosomal abnormality. To me that would seem to be a reasonable solution.
Exactly what my buddy, AI, said above!
According to research, a small percentage of transgender individuals, estimated to be around 1-2%, exhibit abnormal chromosomes, which is slightly higher than the general population, with studies showing a range from 0.88% to 2.3% depending on the cohort analyzed; however, it’s important to note that having abnormal chromosomes does not directly cause someone to be transgender.
Reasonable
These are disorders and birth defects. These are medical between doctor and patient.
Humans replicate by male female until they don’t.
Birth defect! That’s the term I was trying to think of.
Those are not separate sexes, as there are only two sexes — male and female. What you listed are mutations of XX and XY. Genetic disorders, anomalies. They cause diseases, conditions, syndromes.
Students must be provided vouchers and allowed to make their own choices on education.
School districts engage in “an establishment of religion” and “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” by denying access to religious schools.
Public schools establish and compel the religion of communist teacher-union dogma and doctrine.
Public schools prohibit the free exercise of religion by students.
“Public schools prohibit the free exercise of religion by students.” BS. Nobody is denying religion to any public school student.
Just because you believe it does not make it true.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
_____________________
Of course, communist teacher union public schools prohibit the free exercise of religion by students.
“by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program,” Professor Turley.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Students must be allowed to exercise their religious freedom; their religious freedom must be facilitated by the use of vouchers.
Students must be allowed to choose: Communist schools or religious schools.
A cowardly Anonymous Democrat tried throwing this against the wall, hoping their channeling would stick: Nobody is denying religion to any public school student.
Unless the government’s public school teacher employees tell children from the Abrahamic religions that little boys can be girls, America is Systemically White Racist, Alphabet Six Pride Tribe, Tranny 101 – and they better pay attention and node their heads up and down in agreement.
There will be tests to be passed to move up to the next grade – and expulsions for disagreement.
Old Airborne Dog
Nope. The public provides a baseline education. Want more, pay it. Education should be streamlined.
The public provides a baseline education. Want more, pay it.
On the one hand we have the abject failure of the unionized public school system with government workers playing the part of teachers.
On the other hand, this system that continually fails to teach the most basic level of competence in primary school subjects is supposedly giving successful baseline education.
The public square and the US Postal Service provides a baseline freedom of expression. If you want more, pay for it out of your own pocket without a dime of taxpayer money from the government.
Old Airborne Dog
And, if the school is based upon LGBTQ or radical Islamic culture, ideals and values ? . . . Will the American people willingly support such an educational system with tax dollars ?
right now they do – whether they like it or not. The “teachers” union is in charge.
LGBTQ is not a “thing.”
It is a gross error, a gross aberration and perversion of nature that deserves no support or advocacy, while it does not compel any particular adversity in the absence of incidental disruption.
LGBTQ is acquiescence by milquetoast liberals and RINOs who are weak-kneed and afraid to stand up for what is natural and normal.
Figure it out; LGBTQ is self-terminating.
What’s that tell you?
The American Founders did not admit Islamists to become citizens.
“[The safety of a republic depends] essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.”
“In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Support for classical reading, writing, speaking and classical science and math, geography, astronomy, geology, biology, etc and there’s no time left for frills. Change the approach.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal must be rejected as invalid and she must be reinstated by Chief Justice Roberts.
This is my non-legal but germane though for today (although I think the Free Exercise response by the Okla SC is its weakest but still with viable).
I bought my first house in the mid-1990s, located in a small municipality outside of a major metropolis. For tax purposes, my residence at that time was valued at $200K, and before signing the line, I did note that property tax on my property was roughly $5000.
What I did NOT look into until after purchase was that roughly $2200 of that county property tax was for SCHOOL FUNDING. I joined neighbors in objecting to the hefty school tax, but for different reasons. I argued that I had no children in any of the schools, and my neighbors argued that they were already paying $2000-3000 per annum tuition (for local parochial schools)
IN ADDITION to these property taxes. We therefore argued that taxes should be based on participatory reasoning, not home value. We lost, based on the fact that MOST of this tax money went to support public schools at the county level, –meaning the low-income inner-city schools.
Take a look at where the money comes from for public education: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-are-public-schools-funded/
https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2022-04-public-schools-property-tax-comparison-education-models.
So I lay out the following for thought:
(1) Forget Catholic St. Isodore. What if suddenly there is an application for charter of an Islamic/Muslim school that proposes identical (analogous) tenets and principles in its charter? Upon approval, more Islamist/Muslim persons then migrate to Oklahoma and apply for such charters. Would we feel differently? Will education become tribalistic?
(2) Is the objection to funding speciously presented as based on church/state separation, but really over underlying fear of dwindling revenues being forced to cover more territory?
(3) What if, arguendo, property taxes dedicated to education remained at the same level, but taxpayers were permitted to dedicate the tax burden to a particular educational system in which they had VESTED INTEREST? ( I am familiar with countering arguments; I’m just throwing this out for thought stimulation on alternative tax bases.)
lin wrote: Forget Catholic St. Isodore. What if suddenly there is an application for charter of an Islamic/Muslim school that proposes identical (analogous) tenets and principles in its charter? Upon approval, more Islamist/Muslim persons then migrate to Oklahoma and apply for such charters. Would we feel differently? Will education become tribalistic?
For myself, the First Amendment protections on religious faith don’t have qualifiers that kick in if you find a religion odious, alarming, medieval, whatever. Just as there aren’t First Amendment qualifiers that exclude free speech that you find odious, alarming, whatever.
Given the percentage of Americans today that are actually observant in ANY religion, with that percentage continuing to shrink, I don’t think anyone has to worry that the unionized government employees doing the indoctrinating in the public school system will be wiped out by tribalistic parochial charter schools.
Old Airborne Dog
The dollars are much higher than those in the chart. The chart showed money for ADA, average daily attendance, and did not include various grants for buildings and grounds, food service, maintenance and transportation, special ed, migrants, ESL, nurses, psych, textbooks, supplies on and on. The price is about half increase added to the cost cited.
I bring this up because the case here is a charter virtual school and is based upon ADA only depleting or disenrolling pupils in schools although they maintain their finger in the pie in administration.
These virtual schools use programs costing about 200 dollars per subject. The cost is much less than texts and standard teaching models making them quite lucrative.
Personally, instead of increasing the cost of education as people pop out baby after baby there should be an additional tax above 3 children rather than tax deductions as is now. People without children paying zero education taxes and once the home us absent dependents again opting out. People with 7 + children would pay the greatest education taxes.
In California the governor sends his children to private schools at a cost of approximately 40 thousand per year per child. The model is quite different.
It’s parent involvement in positive ways that make a difference and not just hunting down lawsuits.
Arkansas spends the least and New York the most. Both failures. Best practices can be seen in private schools such as Newsom children’s education adding vacations and sailing, sports, etc. There’s no real equity. Other nations offer some alternatives as well.
This case is ridiculous.
The vested interest is the United States education level as a total community.
Wait. wait. That’s an empty statement. Are you saying that “vested interest” should be nationalized/standardized per citizen or resident? Should every citizen be taxed equally? Should education be removed from property tax and added to national income tax?
You could but not for religion. You have Sunday schools but once again someone else can do it. It’s a way to get money and not mine. Why is a family of 7 taking a bigger dip than a family of 1? BS
Using property taxes is an awful method.
Education belongs to the states. It can’t be Constitutionally nationalized.
Lin: I agree. The ruby- red state I live in does everything possible to use taxpayer money to support Christian- based schools and to take funding away from public schools. One effect of this is that these Christian schools are raising tuition— why not profit from taxpayer money?
The pope needs a new cathedral.
The ruby- red state I live in does everything possible to use taxpayer money to support Christian- based schools and to take funding away from public schools.
Lets let the Constitution translate cowardly Anonymous Democrat Speaking It’s Truth:
In my ruby-red state they do everything possible to deprive the government employees in our unionized atheist public schools of the amount of money they would have been paid if those parochial schools’ students had been forced to attend our unionized atheist schools. They then give those parents’ share of those school taxes to to the charter and parochial schools they chose for their children to attend instead.
Oh, the horror! The school tax money follows the taxpayer’s children to whatever school they attend: unionized government school or charter private school. What an abuse of the government’s money!
This is identical to the Democrats’ Marxist outrage that, if a tax cut leaves you with more of the money you earned than the government confiscated beforehand – that money you now get to keep that would have been taxed from you and wasted before was actually STOLEN from the government.
How magnanimous these cowardly Anonymous Democrats are: they’re okay with school choice – as long as the school taxes parents pay still go 100% to the unionized government employees in the public schools, and not a dime of that tax money the parents paid as their fair share going to the private charter school instead.
Pay taxes for unionized government workers to poorly educate the Democrat Marxists’ kids – and then fork over again to pay for the privilege to have your child better educated in a charter school, whether secular or parochial.
Old Airborne Dog
I don’t like property taxes supporting schools. Or maybe I mean it the other way — I don’t want schools being funded by property taxes.
It is very uneven. Low income school districts vs mid to high income school districts.
Also, not everyone pays property taxes. (Side note, I just drove my mom downtown today to drop off her property tax payment, lol)
There has to be a better, more even way to fund our schools. Government is just so greedy, inefficient, and ineffective.
Having the government use public funds to hire teachers to teach Catholicism is “establishment of religion” and thus forbidden under 1A.
If the Catholic teachers are teaching math, does that violate 1A, in your opinion?
Having the government use public funds to hire teachers to teach Catholicism is “establishment of religion” and thus forbidden under 1A.
I would believe you actually had rational concerns about the First Amendment. Except that you support government using public funds to hire unionized teachers as dependent government employees who support government with hundreds of millions of union political donation kickbacks and their millions of votes.
All to indoctrinate by teaching the supremacy of the state along with Systemic White Racism, Woke, Alphabet Sec Pride Tribe, Critical Black Racism Marxist Theory, and Tranny 101.
Old Airborne Dog.
No, it is not.
What is meant by ‘an establishment of religion’ is a government mandated religion.
Many states had their own government mandated religion. Many states had religious tests in their constitutions, too. Some states levied taxes to support the church, pay the clergy, take care of the church buildings. Some states required people to attend services. Some states allowed only church members to vote.
The states insisted on the BoR so that the new federal government couldn’t interfere in the issues that belonged to the states — religion being a very important one.
There were two types of religions — the government established religion and tolerated religions. Tolerated religions were ones that depended solely on their congregations for funding and support. Trying to remember what the specific denominations were — Congregational was one of them, Church of England was one. Presbyterian. Several states discriminated against Roman Catholics.
In Maryland, where they established the Church of England, between 1704-1775, Roman Catholic (“RC”) services could be held only in private homes, RCs could not teach school, inheritance of property by RCs was restricted, and RCs who would not take a certain oath were disfranchised and subject to additional taxes, as well as being forced to contribute to the established church. In Virginia at this time, RCs were forbidden to possess arms, give evidence in court, or hold office unless they took certain oaths. New York and Massachusetts made laws which stayed on the books until the Revolution directing all RCs to leave the realm. Rhode Island’s laws between 1719-1783 prohibited RCs from being freeman or office holders. Not until 1783 were RC’s given full political rights in Rhode Island. In Virginia, no marriage was legal unless performed by a minister of the Church of England. 2
Everyone in Virginia, Maryland, and North & South Carolina was required to contribute to the support of the established Church of England, to maintain the building, pay the minister’s salary, and provide him with a house and plot of land. New York required each county to hire a “good sufficient” Protestant minister and to levy taxes for his support. By 1760, the Congregational Church was still established in Massachusetts and Connecticut; but Episcopalians, Baptists and Quakers were now tolerated, and no longer required to support of the Congregational Church. 3 Presbyterians of Chester, New Hampshire objected to being taxed to support the Congregational minister, and in 1740 won the right to be taxed only for their own denomination. Even so, in 1807, the Presbyterians in Chester sold a Quaker’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax!
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/
The First Amendment is a prohibition against the federal government creating a federal church which all the states would be forced to attend and directly support through a tax. A federally established church which would be supreme over their own established churches.
SCOTUS and the rest of the federal government have grossly deviated from the correct meaning of the Constitution. They’ve ripped it to shreds.
One possible explanation for Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself is she probably remembers the legacy of “JFK” era growing up.
In the 1960’s, many (maybe most) Conservatives disliked Catholics and Jewish Americans.
JFK and RFK were falsely accused of being an arm of the Vatican in Rome. Although JFK and RFK were strong supporters of the American Oath of Office which pledges supreme loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, Protestant Christians were falsely defaming the Kennedy as working for the Vatican.
All evidence since then declared this a total falsehood. Then federal Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, actually referred the Richard & Mildred Loving to the ACLU in the 1960’s. RFK helped build the foundation to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling “Loving v. Virginia” (legalized interracial marriage). A tool for the Vatican, supporting Catholic theocracy, would never refer anyone to the ACLU.
Many of these type Conservatives still exist today in 2025, so maybe Barrett was wise removing any doubt about her allegiance to the U.S. Constitution by recusing herself.
I doubt that “many of these types of conservatives still exist today.” Why? Because when Biden ran for President in 2020 there was no question raised of his allegiance to the Pope over the US Constitution. That shows that the issue raised in relation to the first Catholic president 60 years earlier had become a non-issue in our day.
OldManFromKansas: Posing either Biden (or Pelosi) as representative of ANYTHING in any way related to the Catholic Church is as though their record in office as allegedly devout “Catholics” does not exist.
They were never subjected to the vitriol and demagoguery that Comey-Barrett was immediately after her nomination. Or if you prefer, Antonin Scalia.
Democrats have a well earned reputation of their hatred and fear of Catholics from the first days of their Kluxxers, all the way through FDR’s Kluxxer Justice, Hugo Back. If Kennedy hadn’t been such a rock star when he ran for president, even his father buying that presidential election for him wouldn’t have succeeded.
Old Airborne Dog
Having the government use public funds to hire teachers to teach Catholicism is “establishment of religion” and thus forbidden under 1A.
I would believe you actually had rational concerns about the First Amendment. Except that you support government using public funds to hire unionized teachers as dependent government employees who support government with hundreds of millions of union political donation kickbacks and their millions of votes.
All to indoctrinate by teaching the supremacy of the state along with Systemic White Racism, Woke, Alphabet Sec Pride Tribe, Critical Black Racism Marxist Theory, and Tranny 101.
Old Airborne Dog.
Old Airborne Dog
Biden and Pelosi are from a sect of Catholicism that I am not familiar with. Having half my family being catholic I have spent much time with them, priests and nuns (some also relatives) and none came close to being anything like Biden and Pelosi, thank god.
GEB, there are some Catholics among my cousins, aunts, and uncles. I have no idea what kind of Catholics they would call themselves. We don’t discuss religion much – it just doesn’t come up; family does.
I have heard more than one call the current Pope a Marxist, And Biden and Pelosi disgusting for pushing legislation that would allow elective birth control abortions up to the moment of birth – and then going to receive Communion.
Old Airborne Dog
I don’t disagree with you. But I doubt that would dissuade anyone who fits the description of “these types of conservatives” from raising questions about Biden. Therefore, I disagreed with the other commenter’s unsubstantiated claim that many of them “still exist today.”
The election of 1960 seems so far away in time but I was finishing the 7th grade and people actually did pronounce that they feared a catholic takeover or that the Vatican would set the agenda in the White House. I heard it from friends and friend’s parents and in the paper and on TV. So strange what was thought and them it mostly disappeared.
I’m not sure that these people objecting were necessarily conservatives. In the South where I lived many were of a more racist persuasion but not all.
I heard many liberals in the years afterward voice anti catholic and anti semitic tomes but usually in quiet conversations when only a small group was present. Outright racism also
He also opposed review by the Supreme Court, warning that the school intends to “serve the evangelizing mission of the church.”
These faith-based schools supposedly evangelize more than the unionized staff of our public schools as they teach Woke, Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe, Critical Racist Black Theory Marxism, etc?
Being agnostic, I don’t have any faith feelings involved either from deist religions or the Rock Fairy Religion of Atheism.
But these cases always remind me that the outraged government opposing schools such like this are quite happy to demand taxes from all, whether parents of children or not, to be spent on public schooling, provided by unionized teachers who are essentially government employees, who do not negotiate their contracts with those taxpayers.
The taxes required to be paid by those who wish their children to be educated at these schools go to the public schools they don’t want their children educated in – but not a dime should go to these religious schools.
It’s a good thing Professor Turley didn’t go down the road as to which party is most obsessively opposed to charter schools in general – never mind parochial schools. Because the opposition is almost 100% from the political party he supports: the Democrats.
(Gentner Drummond is a Republican – one who earned his political chops working as a staffer for that state’s last Democrat senator, and has regularly said his state owes the DNC bigly for what it did for their state 90 years ago. Think of Drummond as Oklahoma’s up and coming wannabe Alaska Senator Murkowski, as much or more Democrat than Republican. He ran unopposed by Democrats for Attorney General; this issue is one of his stepping stones to hopefully becoming the next governor of Oklahoma.)
Old Airborne Dog
Coming from the perspective of: Is it the best thing for the Country?
On one hand it is important to foster (fund) a diversity of thought. ¹
On the other is it detrimental to foster the exclusivity of thought. ²
¹ A diversity of Schools would offset the Publicly available Schools, to which the prescribed curriculum (acculturation & indoctrination) leads to a divers outcome of Individuals. Public vs. Catholic, Academy, Country Day Schools, etc …
² A diversity of School’s prescribed curriculum (acculturation & indoctrination) could lead to secular homogeneity. An Exclusivity (e.g.: The “Moral Majority”). The Exclusivity may also facilitate Ethnic and Racial divisions.
Maintaining a ‘Mathematical Majority” vs a “Moral Majority”, also addresses the Agnostic (Thomas Henry Huxley).
Economic-segregation apply to both forms, Public and Private in that funding levels relate to the Quality of educational services provided.
Rich School: Full Time Staff, wide curriculum, Sports programs, Music programs, Business programs, Arts programs, Special Ed programs, Hot-Lunch program, etc…
Poor School: Part Time Staff, narrow curriculum, no additional programs … .
The effect on the individual Family is: You get what you pay for.
The effect on the Community is : You get what you can afford.
I’m Pro a “wall of separation between Church & State,” a term coined by Thomas Jefferson. WE are fortunate that the Founders latched onto the concept early on. It saved us from fighting with one another and destroying the union..
It is best for the United States not to blur the lines of our democracy into a theocracy. It’s to our advantage, not to fall into a internal conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
The evidence is there to show that without that separation, it leads to religious domination and various forms of radicalism of the respective population.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/10/03/many-countries-favor-specific-religions-officially-or-unofficially/
FYI: National Park Service
Separation of Church & State History
A history lesson and historical perspective
[Link] nps.gov/articles/000/church_state_historical.htm
The above account is ahistorical. The Establishment Clause on its face only restricts Congress from passing a law respecting an establishment of religion. Its purpose was to prevent the national government from making a national church that would interfere with states having their own established churches. It wasn’t until nearly two centuries later that the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply the Establishment Clause to state governments as well.
Re: oldmanfromkansas
Those are good valid points but under Article 1 (authority of Congress) gives Congress the power to “enforce the Constitution” which would include all constitutional amendments and articles. Article 1 ratified in 1789, predating the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791.
Also in 1789, Article VI of the Constitution (section 3) says there is “no religious test” required for any government official. The previous section 2 says the “U.S. Constitution” is the supreme law of the United States (federal laws must circumscribe the Constitution).
Section 2 of Article VI (1789) also legally mandates that federal, state and local officials, legislators and judges must follow the U.S. Constitution. Local and state officials must also follow the U.S. Constitution (including education boards).
In 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court passed “Marbury v. Madison” officially establishing Judicial Review (a centuries old practice predating the United States itself). This gives the Judicial Branch the sole authority in interpreting what is constitutionally legal in the USA.
In 1810, the court passed “Fletcher v. Peck” – basically clarifying Section 2 of Article VI (1789) and expanding “Marbury v. Madison” to state and local officials. For example: a small town sheriff was legally required to follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings (or the highest court ruling in their region if case rejected by the higher court).
One thing that seems clear based on centuries of court rulings, is that government officials can’t use taxpayer dollars or government authority to indoctrinate children in school. Maybe private schools that receive no taxpayer dollars can do that but most private schools receive some taxpayer funding (federal grants for disabled children, etc).
Check out this case:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris
A cowardly Anonymous Democrat tried throwing this against the wall, hoping their channeling would stick: One thing that seems clear based on centuries of court rulings, is that government officials can’t use taxpayer dollars or government authority to indoctrinate children in school.
1. The unionized government employees in the public school system – Democrats most valuable source of political donations and millions of their employee’s votes – are doing exactly that in forcibly indoctrinating children in Systemic White Racism, Woke, Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe, Critical Black Racist Theory Marxism, and of course Tranny 101. Those schools are at the same time failing to educate students in the very basics: math, reading, writing, etc.
2. It is another Democrat lie to claim that there is no jurisdiction countering Kluxxer Hugo Black’s “Separation Of Church And State” – that does NOT appear in the words of the First Amendment. There is a previous 150+ years of jurisprudence before that, including the example below:
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/
Old Airborne Dog
Yowza!
There are so many inaccuracies in your comment I wouldn’t know where to begin to offer corrections.
I will say this:
In 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court passed “Marbury v. Madison” officially establishing Judicial Review (a centuries old practice predating the United States itself). This gives the Judicial Branch the sole authority in interpreting what is constitutionally legal in the USA.
Practically the only true parts of the above comment are the date, USSC, and the name of the case — Marbury v Madison.
TJ is right posted: I’m Pro a “wall of separation between Church & State,” a term coined by Thomas Jefferson. WE are fortunate that the Founders latched onto the concept early on. It saved us from fighting with one another and destroying the union.
TJ Is Wrong if he believes the Framers “latched onto the concept early on”. Because nowhere in Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention can TJ find any discussion supporting his claim this is what they intended as the basis of American republicanism.
As for Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party, TJ should re-read Jefferson’s letter to the Danville Baptists that the “freedom FROM religion” crowd hang their hopes on:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
Jefferson wasn’t attempting to modify the meaning of the First Amendment with his pen, he was pointing out that it built a wall to defend religions and the practice of religion (including practicing atheism) from attacks by elected governments. It’s a hard stretch to believe Jefferson would have approved of this Democrat Different Double Standards treatment of unionized public schools versus charter schools.
The semantics argument used by those who claim it means “freedom FROM religion” is no different than the semantics approach used by those who demand freedom from guns in the hands of Americans, the ones who claim that only the National Guard have a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Old Airborne Dog
“… Jefferson wasn’t attempting to modify the meaning of the First Amendment with his pen, he was pointing out that it built a wall to defend religions and the practice of religion (including practicing atheism) from attacks by elected governments. … ‘
The ‘roots’ of the adage (as far as I could research) came a English colonist named Roger Williams was experimenting with ideas of religious equality, civil participation, democracy, free speech, and personal liberty. In 1636
https://nps.gov/people/roger-williams.htm
None the less, as it’s concept evolved to TJ, and from TJ to Today, the SCOTUS is faced with deciding the ‘matrix’ of ‘The Wall’.
I wholeheartedly agree with “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” – TJ
Today in practice it has narrowed down to the ‘socio-economic values’ of the matter, of which the SCOTUS will define a Calculus of Law.
My expose of the issue is to make example of the ‘Value’ to the Country as a whole. In support of maintain the said ‘separation’.
the “said ‘separation'” is a current status quo that is discriminatory and prejudicial to religious Americans and how they choose to educate their children.
More work needs to be done to make America 100% free of any religion as Marx wanted! Only fealty and worship of the State can be tolerated.
“In God We Trust” must also be expunged, and any other expression recognizing a Creator”.
Old Airborne Dog
“The case could produce one of the most consequential decisions on the separation of Church and State in decades.” (JT)
A commenter: “That is not the wording of the First Amendment. That is the phrase used in a decision by FDR’s . . .”
Actually, that metaphor goes back to the 17th century: a “hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world.”
Which was then repeated by Jefferson: a “wall of separation between Church & State.”
The ends (a theocracy) justifies the means (butchering history).
Just as corrupt as when the Left does it.
Sam posted: Actually, that metaphor goes back to the 17th century: a “hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world.”
Yes Sam, Jefferson’s private letter to his supporters in the Danbury Baptist church. That is a private letter that was uncovered later in history – it was FDR’s kluxxer, Catholic-hating Justice Hugo Black who took that letter and wove it into law with a decision he wrote. Black did that while choosing the Danbury letter – rather than Jefferson’s letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, a devoted Christian and fellow signer of the Declaration Of Independence. The letter to Dr. Rush leaves no room for belief Jefferson agreed with government action like this case involves.
Mixing metaphors can be a very useful tool when Democrats in public office or SCOTUS are attempting to reinterpret the plain language in the words of either the First or Second Amendments.
Black inserted new law into the First Amendment that SCOTUS justices for over 150 years had never discovered – just as Roe v. Wade later would discover a constitutional right to elective birth control abortions in “emanations and penumbras” from the Constitution that only they could see.
Previous SCOTUS jurisprudence on this issue is well explained in one of the earlier SCOTUS decisions that Hugo Black swam upstream away from, back towards England where religious activity was controlled by elected government.
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/
The body of Jefferson’s writings and other letters show Jefferson was in lockstep compliance with the historical interpretation of the First Amendment refusing elected governments the power to discriminate or interfere with or discriminate against religions and their activities i.e. establishing schools for those desiring education in religious versus government public schools.
In Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black quoted Thomas Jefferson’s term “wall of separation” and further added his own religious antipathy towards Catholics that the wall must be high and impregnable. A full reading of what Jefferson wrote does not support the Catholic hating Hugo Black, nor the semantics argument based on Jefferson’s use of that term.
Jefferson’s private letter responding to his admiring fans of the Danbury Baptists that the “freedom FROM religion” crowd hang their hopes on:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
Denying a Catholic school recognition is very plainly a government attack prohibiting the free exercise of Catholics to establish their own schools to educate their children in, versus educating their children in the government’s unionized public schools.
Jefferson wasn’t attempting to modify the meaning of the First Amendment with his pen, he was pointing out that it built a wall to defend religions and the practice of religion (including practicing atheism) from attacks by elected governments. It’s a hard stretch to believe Jefferson would have approved of this Democrat Different Double Standards treatment of unionized public schools versus charter schools.
The semantics argument used by those who claim it means “freedom FROM religion” is no different than the semantics approach used by those who demand freedom from guns in the hands of Americans, the ones who claim that only the National Guard have a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Old Airborne Dog
There is nothing preventing any child from attending church several times per week, every week on their own private time. Nothing preventing a child from attending religious summer camp during summer vacation.
No government official (state or federal) is going to infringe on any American attending church! But you also can’t use government to impose your religious interpretation onto other kids.
Schools shouldn’t be in the business of indoctrinating children – that’s the role of the church and parenting, not the school teacher!
Charter schools are only attended by choice. Nothing is imposed. That’s the beauty of school choice.
LGBTQ is not a “thing.”
It is a gross error, a gross aberration and perversion of nature that deserves no support or advocacy, while it does not compel any particular adversity in the absence of incidental disruption.
LGBTQ is acquiescence by milquetoast liberals and RINOs who are weak-kneed and afraid to stand up for what is natural and normal.
Figure it out; LGBTQ is self-terminating.
What’s that tell you?
OMGeee that is an abomination!!!
I’m not referring to the teacher, herself. I’m referring to her gross, despicable words and actions!
The US Flag makes her uncomfortable???
LEAVE!!
Congress makes laws writes, [1] “But you also can’t use government to impose your religious interpretation onto other kids,”
and he writes, [2] “Schools shouldn’t be in the business of indoctrinating children – that’s the role of the church and parenting, not the school teacher!”
Congress, I totally get your sentiment in theory. In practice, however, enforcing the first statement has led to contradicting the last statement on an epic scale. If theory and practice were the same, I could accept your reasoning, but the only real solution is not to exclude persons of faith from public institutions; it would lead to some religious meddling, but inevitably who isn’t meddling?
Congress makes laws, not presidents! says: No government official (state or federal) is going to infringe on any American attending church! But you also can’t use government to impose your religious interpretation onto other kids.
Unless your government tells you that they won’t allow you to have a charter school to educate your child in rather than the government’s option: an atheist unionized school, where union membership is mandatory, where the teachers are employees of that government.
This school was going to forcibly impose it’s religious beliefs on kids from the general public, rather than the kids there by choice? Who knew – great for Democrats to remind us of this terrible infringement on those childrens’ rights as they were about to be forced to attend this school!
Schools shouldn’t be in the business of indoctrinating children
Unless it’s the government’s business of indoctrinating unwilling parents’ children into Systemic White Racism, Woke, Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe, and Critical Black Racist Marxist Theory
Democrats have a long record of opposition to any alternative to the unionized government’s public school system, whether the alternatives are secular or parochial.
Pragmatically, the hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of unionized public school teacher votes the Democrats can’t exist without are too important not to demand they be given a monopoly.
Old Airborne Dog
“There is nothing preventing any child from attending church several times per week,”
while five days a week they must be force-fed the religion of communism by the wholly unconstitutional communist teacher unions.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”
– Vladimir Lenin
___________________
Communism is absolutely the religion of anti-religion.
Communism is antithetical and unconstitutional.
Well, I think the restrictions on religion in the USA have been overdone. Jefferson never envisioned the “Woke Church”–a regime of secular values with all the aspects of a cult. The difference between the D.C. courts and the Spanish Inquisition is a difference in degree, not in kind, and the politics of people of faith are usually influenced by their religious beliefs anyway.
The Left has used this false dichotomy between faith and politics to drive persons of faith out of public institutions, only to replace religion with increasingly absurd leftwing totems. That is what happens when lawmakers make meaningless distinctions.
In countries that respected the separation of church and state, the influence of the churches was limited anyway. This trend began after the religious wars of the 17th Century in Europe had killed off a lot of the religious zealots. The Enlightenment began shortly after that–not a coincidence. Europeans are literally a different species on this issue, right down to their DNA. The rest of the world… not so much. Bigotry, zealotry, and tribalism are still the norms in most places.
I’m not calling for theocracy. I’m calling for more public tolerance directed toward people of faith. It’s tolerance that leads to just societies.
Tolerance and diversity are not the same thing, BTW.
“The Left has used this false dichotomy between faith and politics to drive persons of faith out of public institutions, only to replace religion with increasingly absurd leftwing totems.”
The left tried to destroy cultural norms, whether they be religious or secular, under the banner of freedom of speech to create a vacuum so they could exert power and fill the nation with intolerant totalitarian leadership of their choosing.
Has anyone else noticed that the stupidest, most juvenile and ugly comments are always made by idiots going by “Anonymous”? I disagree with Gigi, Dennis, George and a few others and I do so vehemently since they are just partisan hacks, but the Anonymous cretins really are trying to muck up this site and doing so probably to get it taken down. This is who they are.
I have noticed that too. I think the only solution is for the moderators not to allow such posts. That would not be a restriction on free speech since anyone could say the same thing, just not anonymously.
In one respect, we are all anonymous. Do you think that my real name is Floyd??? What I do think is that each “anonymous” should have a specific nom de plume to identify them. So Bad Anonymous might be Stewart Wolf. Another Anonymous might be Bob Trout. Katherine St Bernard. Frank Fox. Peter Pike. Betty Cardinal. Harold Wren. Teddy Sturgeon. etc.
Your name isn’t really Floyd???
Quick…smelling salts and my fainting couch…
But choosing the username Floyd DOES give you an identity in the virtual community here – and the ability to compare all of your posts to grasp the character and person behind the posts.
Old Airborne Dog
That’s right. Plus, if you reply to “anonymous”, which one is it??? Very confusing.
That’s what gets me.
So many people use ‘anonymous’ and there can be several ‘anonymouses’ in one particular thread – I don’t know who or how many people are actually posting.
My brain hurts.
Many, if not most of the silly leftist ones come from Bug the Boozer. We used to have a lot from ATS (Anonymous the Stupid), another anonymous figure, but he mostly disappeared or is in deep hiding. He liked to hurt people.
Oh, thank you for explaining. I have seen ‘ATS,’ but couldn’t figure out how it could be an abbreviation for anonymous, lol.
ATS had more than one name. With multiple anonymous postings and sometimes names, he used all sorts of tricks. One of his names was banned. He purposely used that name in a complex discussion, knowing blog members would spend much time and energy responding. Then, some excellent responses were removed when he was removed.
Removing a banned name means removing all the names below in that string. He would post and have other anonymous persons or aliases confirm his statement.
The good thing was he was marginally more intelligent than our present anonymous figures. He might still be posting his leftist ideas, especially when it comes to intersex discussions.
I named him Anonymous the Stupid, and Olly started using the initials ATS.
Thank you.
I am enjoying the high quality of people and comments on this blog. I am learning new things and sometimes I literally LOL.
The other comments, well, I am just trying to scroll by them. I’ve tried to learn the lesson that interacting with unpleasant people accomplishes nothing. I just have to keep reminding myself to ‘walk on by….’
Floyd can’t grasp that picking a name, ANY NAME, allows the person to be differentiated from the other juvenile idiots and more easily ignored. Man, it does get frustrating sometimes.
Floyd, if there is a name and a personal icon, we may not know who the person is but we know his blog history.
This is a private site. The owner of the site can make rules as he sees fit.
Comment platforms and sites do it all the time. Rules for commenting. Such as no foul language, no personal information, no harassing, no spam. Some sites don’t allow links to be posted. There is no reason that the owner couldn’t set a new commenting rule related to names.
People on this site tend to attack people based on who they are, not what they write. Also, one does have to press the envelope icon to bring up the boxes to put in your screen name, and I commonly forget and hit the reply button.
“one does have to press the envelope icon to bring up the boxes to put in your screen name”
The site evidently works differently in different browsers with different configurations. I’m using FF on Linux, and I get presented a comment form with available fields for email address and screen name (among other values). If I skip filling in those fields and press the “Reply” button, my comment is posted as “Anonymous”.
Number 6-I use and an IPAD with up to date IOS and have no difficulties except I am a lousy typist.
I’m commenting through my WordPress account. I don’t have a WP site, just an account.
I just think what I want to say, –and AI does the rest and plugs it in for me. that way, I take no blame for misspells, poor grammar, or irrational thought.
yours insincerely, (but with a feeble attempt at levity), lin hawking.
Not so feeble….I chuckled.
“. . . I take no blame . . .”
First you blame Musk’s Italian Mafia Martians. Now AI.
What next — that your brothers were mean to you? Epicurean swerves?
HA!
Maybe.
MARS bars and chicken cattiatore, washed down with chocolate milk and followed with an extended afternoon nap (not sleeping with my brother). yours truly, AL (artificial lin)
Dear RL (real lin)
Find a new AL. Your current one can’t spell “cacciatore.” (Or was that intentional?)
no. I goofed.
That’s because I am Marshian and not Italian, so I tried phonetics. yours truly, BTJL (back to just lin).