╌>

OK Schools Chief Orders Teachers to Show Video of Him Praying for Trump

  
Via:  John Russell  •  one month ago  •  28 comments

By:   Ron Filipkowski

OK Schools Chief Orders Teachers to Show Video of Him Praying for Trump
This guy is unbelievable.

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


video at


OK Schools Chief Orders Teachers to Show Video of Him Praying for Trump

Ron FilipkowskiNov 17, 2024371Share this postCopy linkFacebookEmailNoteOther21959Share

Oklahoma's Christian nationalist Superintendent of Schools Ryan Walters issued a directive ordering all teachers in the state to show a video in the classroom of himself praying for Donald Trump. Walters also requested that each school send a copy of his video to every parent with a child in the state's schools.

In the video, Walters said the following:

"For too long in the country, we've seen the radical left attack individual religious liberty in our schools. We will not tolerate that in Oklahoma. We've also seen patriotism mocked and a hatred for this country pushed by woke teacher's unions. We will not tolerate that."

As if an attempt to continue to use his taxpayer funded office and the public school system as a right-wing indoctrination laboratory denouncing teachers wasn't enough, Walters then went on in the video to say a prayer for Trump and encouraged students to pray along with him:

"Dear God, thank you for all the blessings you've given our country. I pray for our leaders to make the right decisions. I pray in particular for Donald Trump and his team as they continue to bring about change to the country."

The Oklahoman broke the story about Walters sending out the memo. OK's two largest school districts have already stated that they will not comply with Walters order because he has no legal authority to issue it and it is unconstitutional. Walters posted on Twitter that people objecting to his directive are "mocking religious liberty."


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    one month ago

The video shows this crackpot directly addressing the students of Oklahoma, and then bowing his head in prayer for Trump.  Although this would seem to directly contradict separation of church and state, dont expect the far right SC to say a word about it. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago
The video shows this crackpot directly addressing the students of Oklahoma, and then bowing his head in prayer for Trump. Although this would seem to directly contradict separation of church and state, dont expect the far right SC to say a word about it. 

It doesn't violate the separation clause untill they actually show it to the kids.

Most teachers won't show it.  If one does, then the legal shitstorm will kickoff.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1    one month ago

He issued a directive ordering all teachers in the state to show the video in their classrooms.  That is a violation of the 1st Amendment. 

OK's two largest school districts have already stated that they will not comply with Walters order because he has no legal authority to issue it and it is unconstitutional.

And well they shouldn't.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.1    one month ago
He issued a directive ordering all teachers in the state to show the video in their classrooms.  That is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Not until they do.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Gsquared  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.2    one month ago

A government official issued an order under color of law compelling an act by subordinates in furtherance of establishment of religion.  That is a violation of the 1st Amendment subject to injunctive relief.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.3    one month ago
A government official issued an order under color of law compelling an act by subordinates in furtherance of establishment of religion.

They're not his subordinates.  They don't work for him.  He can't fire a single one of them

He can't order them around any more than Janet Yellen can order bank tellers.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Gsquared  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.4    one month ago
He can't fire a single one of them.

That is not exactly correct.  The Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters, is a member of the State Board of Education and the Board can vote to revoke a teacher's certification, thereby firing them.  See for example the following:

Furthermore, the seeded article itself states that local school districts are refusing to comply with the Superintendent's order because they deem it unconstitutional, i.e., violative of the 1st Amendment.  

The contention that the order requiring that the video be shown is not unconstitutional, and only showing the video would be unconstitutional, does not hold water.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.5    one month ago
That is not exactly correct.  The Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters, is a member of the State Board of Education and the Board can vote to revoke a teacher's certification, thereby firing them.

The Board can vote.  Walters can't do it on his own.  BTW, most of Oklahoma thinks he's crazy, so this is all a very academic (pun intended) discussion.

Furthermore, the seeded article itself states that local school districts are refusing to comply with the Superintendent's order because they deem it unconstitutional, i.e., violative of the 1st Amendment.

I taught public school in Oklahoma and I actually have school administrator's certification in Texas.

This is a fine bordering on pedantic point, but it matters. 

His edict is not unconstitutional by itself.  The implementation of the edict would be. The separation clause is not violated until the video is actually shown.  

The reason it matters revolves around who gets named in the lawsuit and who has to pay the lawyers.   Hint... it's not Walters.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Gsquared  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.6    one month ago

So, is it your opinion that a court cannot enjoin enforcement/activity in compliance with the order because the order is not unconstitutional, and that judicial action cannot be taken until after the video is shown?  If so, I would be interested in the legal authority you rely on for your opinion, and what remedy(ies) you believe the court is empowered to apply after the video might be showm.

I'm also interested in the legal authority you are relying on for your basic opinion that the order (edict) itself is not unconstitutional.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.7    one month ago
So, is it your opinion that a court cannot enjoin enforcement/activity in compliance with the order because the order is not unconstitutional, and that judicial action cannot be taken until after the video is shown?

Not necessarily.  Courts get involved all the time without question of constitutionality. 

The more likely legal angle is that he's exceeding the authority of the office or violating Oklahoma statute in some other way.

Now... as soon as somebody shows the video (and somebody somewhere will), all hell will break loose.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Gsquared  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.8    one month ago

Ok, just to be clear, your contention that the order itself is not unconstitutional is incorrect.  And, you have cited no legal authority in support of your position.

You might find it instructive to read the following link discussing the recent case of Rev Roarke vs. Brumley in which a federal court in Louisiana issued an injunction blocking implementation of a newly-enacted law requiring the display of a copy of the Ten Commandments in every school room as a violation of the First Amendment.  Note that the court ruled the law itself was unconstitutional. 

None of this is to say that there might not also be other legal theories that a court may rely on in addition to the order's blatant unconstitutionality.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  seeder  JohnRussell    one month ago

Joe Biden is the president, and will be when this video is shown to kids in school.  Walters doesnt deem it proper to pray for Biden when he prays for the country.  LOL.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

Nice Christian values he has there

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3  sandy-2021492    one month ago

Matthew chapter 6, starting with verse 1:

 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
[ 2 ] Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
[ 3 ] But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
[ 4 ] That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
[ 5 ] And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
[ 6 ] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3    one month ago

One of my favorite passages from the Bible

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1    one month ago

One of your favorites, and mine.

One of Christian nationalists' least favorite.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.1    one month ago
One of Christian nationalists'

What is a Christian nationalist?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4  Tacos!    one month ago

This guy has a fucking problem. He has several screws loose.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @4    one month ago

Yes.  And this is not the first chapter in this book.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2  CB  replied to  Tacos! @4    one month ago

He has a 'clear' case of Christian nationalism in him. It's sad, too. I see it on TBN almost everyday now (family member watches). These people are hard-core against 99.9 percent of what liberals take a stand. It's sad. It's dangerous. It's hard to see them indoctrinate a television audience with the 'sway' they hold over their studio audiences. 'Tons' of old people being primed and milked because they are close to the end of their lives. . . it's seems almost that some of these people (family included) are trying to 'buy' their way into heaven. Leaves me to wonder why they don't know that - heaven does not work like that.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5  Bob Nelson    one month ago

Just when you think they've set the bar impossibly low.... someone goes even lower.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6  CB    one month ago

I was looking at this dude on television today and thinking to myself . . . my, my, my, Christian nationalist/Jesus "freak." Really, I profess to being Christian and it is as if I am looking at people like him and those broadcasting unsavory political statements on TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) to their congregations as hard=core 'mental' cases—hard to reach/stubborn/potentially dangerous.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7  CB    one month ago

This guy is a piece of work. However, he is working now to make a name for himself. He has all the markers of someone doing just that. . . including participating in public (widespread) interviews. He thinks he can persuade more people to his cause if he "goes public" in a big way. Let's show him that it is a quick way to get shut down.

Where is the Church of Satan and Baphomet when they are needed to chastise their 'brethren' on the other side. Yes, I am calling for it. I will not tolerate the abuse of people. . . not even by my fellow believers. I simply won't do it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8  Trout Giggles    one month ago
 Walters posted on Twitter that people objecting to his directive are "mocking religious liberty."

Who's mocking religious liberty?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
8.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @8    one month ago

The liberty to impose one's dogma on others.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
9  evilone    one month ago

This sounds like a job for Matt Gaetz to investigate on day one. Anyone not willing to pray to Trump should be imprisoned. If they are children then their parents should be imprisoned and the children fostered with a private for profit school for reeducation.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilone @9    one month ago

Your sarcasm is on point today....unless you're not being sarcastic lol

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
9.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  evilone @9    one month ago

     256

 
 

Who is online






418 visitors