Oklahoma approves first religious charter school in the nation
By: Andrea Eger Tulsa World (Tulsa World)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Andrea Eger
The Statewide Virtual Charter School Board on Monday voted 3-2, including the deciding "yes" vote by a new member installed on Friday, to approve state sanctioning and taxpayer funding for a Catholic school.
If or when St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School opens, it will be the nation's first religious charter school, but taxpayer challenges have been promised.
The application for charter school funding for a school with religious teachings, policies and hiring practices is viewed by Oklahoma Catholic church leaders and attorneys with the Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative Clinic who helped them as a test case to challenge separation of church and state laws across the nation.
St. Isidore has been proposed to provide Catholic school education access to students in areas currently without Catholic schools and to expand online course offerings to students in existing Catholic schools across Oklahoma.
In April, the board unanimously denied the sponsorship application for St. Isidore. But Catholic leaders took advantage of the opportunity afforded them under state law to take 30 days to revise and resubmit their charter school sponsorship application.
Long-serving member Barry Beauchamp, a retired school superintendent from Lawton who had been allowed to continue serving on the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board after his term expired some months ago, was replaced abruptly on Friday with an Oklahoma City businessman named Brian Bobek by Oklahoma House Speaker Charles McCall.
At the start of Monday's special meeting, Board Chairman Robert Franklin asked Bobek to abstain from voting Monday to "avoid the appearance of political manipulation."
But when it came time to vote, Bobek said it was his duty as a board member to vote, and reading from a written statement, that he believed it would violate the U.S. Constitution to bar a religious entity from state sponsorship on the basis of religion.
He voted "yes" alongside Nellie Sanders of Kingfisher, appointed earlier this year by Oklahoma Senate President Pro Tem Greg Treat; and Scott Strawn, appointed recently by Gov. Kevin Stitt.
Voting no was recently McCall-appointed board member Bill Pearson of Oologah, and the only long-serving board member, Franklin of Tulsa.
Both cited the Oklahoma State constitution's provision for a system of free public schools and requirement in the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act that charter schools be nonsectarian.
At the conclusion of Monday's meeting, Franklin announced he intends to resign from the board.
Bobek is an Oklahoma City businessman who previously served nearly four years on the State Board of Education and the State Board of Career and Technology Education through appointments by Stitt.
The governor has been vocal in his support for the St. Isidore application.
In early December, his appointee John O'Connor issued an advisory legal opinion by the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office that argued the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board should not abide by the state's ban on publicly funded charter schools being operated by sectarian and religious organizations because it could be a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
That piece of advice served as the green light to Oklahoma Catholic leaders to submit the St. Isidore application in January.
But almost immediately upon taking office, Oklahoma's newly elected Attorney General Gentner Drummond withdrew O'Connor's December legal opinion and cautioned the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board against sponsoring St. Isidore.
Drummond said O'Connor's advice was based on legal precedent involving private schools, not public schools, and said sponsoring a religious charter school run by one denomination would "create a slippery slope" to use "religious liberty" to justify state-funded religion.
Chairman Franklin on Monday directed the board's attention to Senate Bill 516, which was just passed by the Oklahoma State Legislature and signed into law Monday by Stitt.
In addition to abolishing the current board come 2024 and creating a new governing board with expanded authority over all charter schools, Franklin said it seemed noteworthy that SB 516 "maintained the same key provision" from the state's long standing Charter Schools Act.
Specifically, SB 516 states: "A charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations. A sponsor may not authorize a charter school or program that is affiliated with a nonpublic sectarian school or religious institution."
Assistant Attorney General Niki Batt, one of the board's legal advisors, told the board Monday before its vote that the "heart of the matter is whether or not these are public or private schools and that will ultimately have to be decided by the court."
"It's important for this body to remember you are an executive branch agency, so it's not (your) job to interpret the law. It's your job to enforce the law as it already exists," she said, noting that Oklahoma law clearly defines charter schools as public schools.
She also told the board that its standard sponsorship contract, which it has used without any customization for all of its six currently sponsored schools, would have to be amended for St. Isidore, if approved, because it includes assurances that charter school operations will be nonsectarian.
When Franklin asked about the implications of amending the standard contract for the board's other sponsored schools, Batt responded that enforcement of that standard contract on other charter schools could be viewed as "arbitrary and capricious" if they aren't also afforded customized contract terms.
In public comments to the board before the vote, Erika Wright, president of the 12,000-member Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition, criticized the Friday board member replacement as 11th-hour vote stacking that "removes trust" from the process.
"I oppose state funds being used for a religious school," she said. "Using public funds to support religious charter schools diverts crucial funds from public education. Everyday Oklahomans are not clamoring for this — this is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent."
Clark Frailey, an Edmond pastor who founded Pastors for Oklahoma Kids, a nonprofit, nondenominational group of pastors from across Oklahoma that advocates for public school policy, told the board he was taught in the two private, religious schools he attended, Oklahoma Baptist University in Shawnee and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, that "The church should not resort to the civil power to do its work … If you choose to approve this, you will be violating this thought."
Longtime Tulsa-based education attorney Doug Mann told the board state sponsorship and funding for a religious school would cause government intrusion into religion.
Representing the Oklahoma Parent Legislative Action Committee, a public school advocacy group, Mann warned there would be "dire consequences to this board if it goes forward" in the form of a taxpayer lawsuit "in which the taxpayers will seek three times the amount of money that is ultimately paid to this school."
"You cannot leave here today with any doubt in your mind as to what each of you are putting on the line if you pursue this unlawful course of action," he said.
Oklahoma City attorney A.J. Ferate, who recently served for a year as chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party, spoke on behalf of First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit Christian conservative legal organization based in Plano, Texas, that litigates First Amendment cases, said Mann "tried to scare you" and offered to personally represent them if they are sued.
Reactions swift to Oklahoma's sponsorship of nation's first religious charter school
Attorney General Gentner Drummond said the decision is unconstitutional and could result in "costly" legal action. Gov. Kevin Stitt calls it "a win for religious liberty and education freedom." #oklaed
Tulsa World Staff Writer Andrea Eger talks with Editor Jason Collington about the efforts by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to get state sponsorship and taxpayer funding for what would be the first religious charter school in the country. The pitch is before the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board.
andrea.eger@tulsaworld.com
Andrea Eger
Tulsa World Staff Writer
- Author facebook
- Author twitter
- Author email
Follow Andrea Eger
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
481 visitors
Actually, this isn't the first tax funded religious charter school in US history.
The Indian Boarding Schools over which 150 were run by RCC and protestant group and the federal government paid them to do so.
Seems Oklahoma didn't learn from the ''Indian Boarding School'' diaster and want to repeat it.
The school will be run by the Catholic Church, truly a fox in the hen house.
unconstitutional. keep religious madrasas funded exclusively by morons, without any tax credits.
Exactly
rwnj's tried pulling that same bullshit about a decade ago in 2 conservative counties in the metro area here and both school boards got recalled.
That presumes this all survives legal challenges, which seems highly, highly unlikely.
True, but what should be pointed out is these challenges to the 1st Amendment under religious grounds are getting more and more common coming directly from state legislatures and finding more sympathy with judges. It seems highly unlikely, but then again I would have said the SCOTUS upholding a high school coach leading prayer on the 50 yard line highly unlikely too, but that happened. I know these aren't the same.. I know that. It's just getting to where the line between secular and religion is getting really, really thin. When it snaps we are all in trouble.
Actually, the full quote is: The school will be run by the Catholic Church, truly a fox in the hen house.
The fox in the hen house is the operative wording.
Let us hope it doesn't survive legal challenges, but stranger things have happened.
Well, it seems to be a pretty clear violation of Oklahoma law. The question will be whether or not that law is Constitutional.
It is a violation of the OK law, as it is today. Following this case will be most interesting.
yeah that makes sense, in a republican state, I guess. allow an organization with a millennia plus history of gay clergy and pedophiles to run a school with the intent of avoiding allegedly gay teachers that are allegedly grooming children for pedophilia and/or the queer lifestyle. /s
Nearly 350 public educators were arrested on child sex-related crimes in the U.S. last year, averaging to almost an arrest every day on crimes ranging from grooming to child porn to raping students, Fox News Digital has found...
These findings are likely lower bound estimates of the actual amount of sexual abuse occurring in public schools because the analysis only includes publicized arrests and cannot count undetected or unreported forms of abuse," DeAngelis told Fox News Digital. "In fact, a 2004 report from the U.S. Department of Education estimated that around one in ten public school students will experience educator sexual misconduct by the time they graduate from high school. The Department of Education should update the report as soon as possible to shine a light on this abuse."
The Education Department report, released nearly 20 years ago , claimed that nearly 9.6% of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.
Good of you to try and take the spotlight off the RCC. Sadly the RCC seems to have a lot of pedophiles in their ranks. Report after report keeps showing this, the latest being Illinois, MD, and Portugal.
Then of course the tens of millions they have had to pay to survivors in settlements and their habit of denying that it occurred or moving known pedophile priests to other parishes all in an attempt to cover up the horrendous/criminal/immoral behavior.
The ''others did it as well'' is no excuse for the RCC.
you to try and take the spotlight off t
Just providing context that millions of public school students have been targeted by public school teaches for sexual misconduct in the last few years, including letting known pedophile teachers move to other districts all in an attempt to cover up the horrendous/criminal/immoral behavior. But no one really cares much about them because they can't exploit them for partisan/bigoted purposes.
fox news? bwah ha ha ha ha ... try again in 25 years...
Interesting to see you try to equate public school teachers with priests that purport themselves to be representatives of God, and have the moral authority that dictates to the flock what their morals should be and as we move up the line in the moral authority chain, bishops, cardinals, and eventually the pope was all complicit in the either participating in the actual sexual abuse or covering it up all the while demanding obedience to their moral authority. This did not only happen in the US but worldwide and has continued for decades.
No one cares about them, and you know this how? Did your local priest tell you that? Who is exploiting them for partisan/bigoted purposes? Do you even realize how ignorant that sounds what could be more partisan and bigoted than those that try to excuse the RCC for decades of destroying tens of thousands of children with the sexual abuse that they condoned?
statistically, kids are safer in public schools than they are in RC churches...
Fuck these assholes.
These religious nationalists are going to end up pushing too far.
They have already pushed to far, Ender.
the big evangelical churches here all have a presence of personnel watching their parking lots during service...
“…have a presence of personnel…”
Brother-in-law is in charge of the conceal carry crew at his 500 person congregation. Imagine that that constitutes worship. Imagine the fear.
"believe in our lord of peace and love, or we'll kill you"
seems a bit contradictory of their deity's teachings ...
“..:believe as he pleased.”
Absolutely sure he’s a he? Gender identity and all being so important to some…
And slaughtering millions is in what sane world a motivator to follow along?
The Bible, Torah and Quran all refer to this deity as a male.
Ah, unimpeachable sources all.
Or.... in the real world... "try to come in and shoot up our church and we'll kill you."
“…Or.... in the real world... "try to come in and shoot up our church and we'll kill you."
Or in your convoluted world, ‘we’ll kill you’ and praise the first responders, and put the praises to god on hold for a moment, confused as to why you were there in the first place.
... the exact same level of fake xtian hypocrisy.
You've posted that sentence and want to pretend somebody else is convoluted?? That's funny.
allegedly the biggest mass murderer in world history. no surprise that some still worship other smaller scale mass murderers by allowing them ease of access to today's tools of that trade.
has a rwnj bathroom/locker room monitor confirmed he actually has a dick? what gender is listed on his birth certificate?
[✘]
I rather be in the parking lot than the pews...
Spoken like a true tyrant.
Free speech for me but not for thee ....
try reading the first amendment, again, and as many times as it takes to comprehend it...
I fail to see what if anything that actually had to do with my comment...
I rest my case.
absolutely nothing
[✘]
your gas detector must be too close to the vent then...
They most certainly do, in this case, this law will be overturned.
Other than that Oklahoma seems to have forgotten the dozens of ''Indian Boarding Schools'' that flourished in Oklahoma many which were run by religious organizations and paid for by the US government that used their power for less than Christian teaching.
Can't teach that stuff in schools ya know....
Nah, not forgotten.
Let me know when these new schools force kids to attend like those old boarding schools and I’ll be right beside you fighting them.
But then again you knew that.
True, since it's considered CRT by the RWers.
The point is that they were run by religious organizations, mainly the RCC and they rarely adhered to anything Christian so it wasn't the first time that religious schools were tax-supported. That said, this law in OK is purely BS and it does violate our constitution.
I would guess that you know that but for whatever reason cannot bring yourself to admit it.
It's amazing to me how little of the constitution a marine knows
Nah, I stand by everything I’ve said here but I’ll leave all y’all to your echo chamber since I appear to be upsetting the troops by having the temerity to disagree ..... have a good one.
I’m gonna drop some flies to land some Brookies for dinner .... later
if you weren't such an absolute shit you would be treated kinder
I'm sure that you do stand by everything that you said, even when it's incorrect. You certainly don't upset me, I simply consider the source and point out your nonsense.
funny how they think they upset us
They would have to be smarter
All they generally have is B&B, (bluster and bullshit.)
Since I can't see his comments I have to ask...did he really make any points at all?
nope it's all just his usual "liberals are shit heads blah blah blah"
Perhaps a sign of the times, but back in the day he was a relatively reasonable fellow. Swirling the drain is now the norm, or nerm if you will.
Thus why he is on ignore.
'hive minded drones blah blah blah'
that too
The fact that they're not going to make any kid go to this or any other charter school is a fair point that none of the doomsayers seem to want to acknowledge.
Another point that is the RCC in non-Indian boarding schools was also rife with sexual abuse. Those that what to avoid the RCC's conduct do not want to acknowledge it.
I'm sure that all have read about the RCC and its abhorrent behavior through out its history when it comes to the sexual abuse of children.
the last line of defense between the radical muslims and a filing cabinet, stateside...
and my best friend is a unicorn
Nah, if I didn’t have the temerity to offer a different viewpoint to the echo chamber here and goose-stepped in exact unison with it, then I’d be fine.
Has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion of what “a shit” is or isn’t.
No doubt about that.
Yep, because admitting that would completely destroy the narrative they are pushing here.
That's why we have courts and a Constitution, neither of which this will likely survive.
I never thought they would overturn R V W either...
that's temporary...
I dunno. I was surprised, but then also kinda not.
I was really surprised by the Hobby Lobby case.
That said, it will be an interesting legal battle. At the end of the day, it's not like subsidized tuition to an online school is actually harmful to anybody. There is a very good chance it will be a better education than most OK kids get in person.
This is scary shit.
Without a doubt.
What exactly is scary about it? Serious question.
We've been paying kids' tuition at religious colleges for decades. Has there been some awful consequence and I just don't know?
This isn't a collage and I found this from the article quite informative:
So what we have a test case to challenge the separation of church and state so the RCC can use taxpayer monies to spread its doctrine.
If the RCC is so concerned about areas without Catholic schools then I suggest that they build their own. They could use their vast wealth to do so.
I dunno.
I think we may simply have a test case to push the use of Pell Grant-style funding into elementary and secondary schools.
The Catholics in Oklahoma (there aren't that many) win this, they must surely realize that the Baptists (who are legion) will follow immediately and overwhelm them. And then the Church of Christ, the Nazarenes, the Pentecostals and everybody else will launch soon after.
Which would allow them to spread their doctrine.
The Christian cabal will be salivating over the opportunity to ''spread the word''.
Another thing that seems quite hypocritical is the whining from the right about ''indoctrinating the children'' and teaching CRT...yet if it is in the name of religion it's quite all right.
I agree, and that is why this, practically speaking, is unconstitutional. It is near impossible for government to favor all religions equally (so as to avoid favoring one over the other) thus the only practical solution is to favor none.
This has the potential to open the floodgates and destroy public education into multiple tribal religious centers and see how fractured our country continues to get.
Sometimes I think that is their goal. To get rid of the public system completely.
it is. they've wanted the taxpayers to fund their thumper academies for over 50 years...
The far right Christian nationalists have made it clear that they do want to completely get rid of the public school system, and at the same time they have been proclaiming that their church should control the government.
If public schools weren’t failing our kids, this wouldn’t even be happening. You want to blame someone blame public school teacher unions.
So instead of trying to fix it, make it impossible for teachers to do their work and promote Christian academies...
What do you think they have been trying to do for decades?
Again, if you are looking to blame someone. Blame teacher unions. And I’m promoting nothing but free choice. I’m not the one here fighting free choice.
It's not free choice when taxpayers are paying for it. Taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook to pay for your kids' religious schooling. That's what Sunday School is for
the promotion of organized religion in america is tantamount to bailing out the titanic...
Some have openly stated so, but they can't logic how that would backfire and blow up in their face.
Make the Pledge of Allegiance mandatory. Putting the 10 Commandments up in Social Studies as the basis of our laws. Promoting Intelligent design over science. Spending more money on Football instead of everything else. I'm sure I forgot something.
Using taxes for religious schools limits the amount of money for public schools. And well throwing money at a problem isn't fix all solution diverting it to limited choices has the potential to make things worse.
Of course it is. You can choose to send your kid there or choose to send them somewhere else. It may be a objectionable arrangement, but it's definitely free choice.
The interesting thing is that Oklahoma state law appears to say exactly that. Which is why I can't see any of this surviving.
I hope you're right
it may take a few churches getting their interiors redecorated first to accomplish that...
yup, remember Betsy DeVos?
I dunno.
I'm much more focused on the quality of education than I am the religious aspect. Public schools do such a terrible job for most kids, that I'm willing to try almost anything that might work. If the Catholics can actually teach math, I'm not opposed to paying them.
I'm not catholic, but if my kids had wanted to go to Notre Dame, I'd have been supportive. We're not Methodists, either, but Vanderbilt is an amazing school.
If your tax dollars are being used for something that you do not want to participate in and do not send your child to the religious school your tax dollars are supporting it is definitely not free choice for you.
It's absolutely ridiculous to state otherwise
That's like saying that since my tax dollars go to fund Medicaid, I don't have free choice about which hospital I can go to.
No, it's not
No, not really. The subject here is a catholic school receiving taxpayer funds.
The state of OK takes my tax money and funds the RCC school, leaving me with no choice but to fund that school. My kid goes to the public school so in essence, I'm paying for two schools with no choice as to which one gets my money. If I send my kid to the RCC it not only is against my beliefs but very likely unconstitutional on both the state and federal level. So I really don't have a choice in this.
I certainly understand that taxes paid cannot satisfy everyones desires and can and will be used for projects that one doesn't support but in this case, I see it as quite different. It is a constitutional question and is also a moral one for many people. If one is not supportive of the RCC and views it differently than an RCC member you are forcing that person to support a religion that they do not adhere to or object to on their historical record and that brings us right back to the constitution. The US Constitution states that the feds cannot support one religion over another, and this law is doing exactly that. It pertains only to the RCC and not the myriad of other Christian religions not to mention non-Christian religions.
A wordy response but it pretty much covers my thinking on the matter.
And if government cannot equally give favor to ALL religions then it must favor NONE of them to be compliant with the 1st.
Exactly.
E
How is that different from a Catholic hospital receiving taxpayer funds? Or a Catholic university?
That's not how that math works.
The state of OK takes your tax money and funds schools 150 miles away and then tells you your kids can't attend them. How is that different?
The US Government takes your tax money and funds RCC colleges all over the country. You haven't been complaining about that. Whether your kid goes to USF or St. Leo, you're still paying the same tax, and your kid can still choose where they want to go to school.
They have been forcing us to do that for decades.
The law isn't doing that. It's Oklahoma. If any religion was going to be favored, it would be the Baptists. They run everything there. But before school starts in the fall, there will be Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ, non-denominational protestant, Lutheran, Hebrew, and probably Islamic schools launched under this same program.
Now... I do think it's going to get struck down, but not based on the 1st Amendment or the favoring of one religion over another.
IMO, it's going to be struck down based on the idea that it's a de-facto enactment of school vouchers without the OK legislature's consent.
We are discussing K 12 not Catholic hospitals or universities and to get you up to date I do not in any way want the government, fed or state funding catholic hospitals or universities or any other religious group.
Unfortunately, it is the way it works.
Why would the state do that?
You're making assumptions, don't do that since have no idea what I do or don't do about RCC or religious funding by the feds. I said in my previous comment that I fully understand how tax are used and how we do not have a lot of choice so your point is moot. Of course, I'm paying the same tax but since they are funding an RCC or religious school which sometimes it will require funds to public education to be cut. Next, in my prior comment, I fully explained my stance on this.
They are absolutely doing that. The RCC is the only one in this so they are favoring a single religion. What the rest will do isn't part of this, the RCC is. Until OK extends this program to all others it is a violation of Church and State.
The OK legislature passed HB1934 (school vouchers) and it is on the Governor's desk for signature.
The same thing applies to parents who send their kids to Catholic schools.
Different situation in that the parents have the public school available and the feds do not fund Catholic schools (K 12) which they shouldn't. This isn't that difficult since it is covered by our constitution.
Then again in Florida which just passed HB1 the school voucher program for all Florida students has become a gold mine for the RCC and other private schools. One Catholic School had stated that they would not be raising tuition but once HB1 was signed into law they increased their rates by 50%, they added a million dollars to their income, and didn't have to add one student.
Praise the lord and pass the taxpayer platter.
All I'm saying is that Catholic school parents pay for two schools as well, and they are also not given the choice of whether they want to pay for the second school.
Yes, they do and it is their choice.
it isn't a choice to pay for public schools.
what's it called when one religion, that's the largest possessor of wealth and property in the world, has plenty of money to pay for sex scandals but still charges it's faithful for educational services that solely benefit the church?
Not just public schools. ALL public services. Schools, health, libraries, protection, everything. The GOP serves the ultra-rich, who do not use public services and therefore see no reason for public funds - their taxes - to be spent on them.
Yes. I am simply pointing out that the precedent exists.
No, it isn't. Oklahomans pay taxes that are distributed to schools on a per student basis. They're not supporting the school, they're paying for the kids to be educated.
They're not. They're processing the first application in line.
By your logic, if the first guy in line at the local bank in the morning is Mexican, the bank is "favoring Mexicans over everyone else".
LOL, you have to be kidding what in the world do you think that money is being used for? It's paying for teachers, building, utilities etc in addition to educating kids.
Unless there are multiple applications from each and every religion in OK, hell yes they are.
That is a really poor analogy, try again since it makes no sense.
No, I'm not kidding. The only reason they're paying for anything is because it's used for educating kids. That's buildings, teachers, buses, electricity, books, or whatever. I'm not sure how that's not obvious.
When they start denying other applications or making other people jump through unrealistic procedures, then you can talk about favoring a religion. That very well may happen, BTW, probably with Islamic schools. The board doesn't seem to have much care for the law.
Until then, however, it's just nonsense.
It's very obvious but as you stated that in OK monies are used to educate students. In reality, anything attached to the school, including buildings, parking lots, books, salaries, and utilities are part and parcel of educating kids. So educating kids also is supporting the school. You cannot educate the kids without a school/teachers and all other parts of that machine.
This is your comment on this:
What is known at this point is that the RCC is the only applicant. IF and when other religious groups file then you have a point but as it lies it is only the RCC and if accepted it is in violation of the constitution. That is quite obvious.
Yeah, in Oklahoma they would probably reject an Islamic school.
There is established precedent on stuff like this.
If a local Baptist/Methodist/Lutheran/Whatever Church wants to use a public school building, it is not a violation of the Constitution to allow it.
If they're the only group using it because nobody else has asked, still not a violation.
If they're the only group allowed to use it and other groups are turned away... NOW we have a violation.
It's interesting. My guess is that they're pulling a power play here in order to get sued so they can get this whole "non-sectarian" clause in front of the SCOTUS, especially while they think they have a favorable set of justices. Rejecting an Islamic school will certainly get their ass in a vice, SCOTUS wise, so the question is whether or not they're smart enough to see that.
Jack, this is not the case the RCC and specifically St. Isidore has been proposed to provide Catholic school education access to students in areas currently without Catholic schools and to expand online course offerings to students in existing Catholic schools across Oklahoma. It has nothing to do with a local religion using a public school building it is using an existing set of catholic schools to be the only ones to be so funded. There is no precedent for this.
This may well be the case. From what I read about it there are still deep divisions in the OK legislature about their voucher systems funding a religious school. If this goes before SCOTUS the decision will have major repercussions since I believe that there are other states that would follow OK lead.
You are talking about the use of govt...specifically educational...resources by religious organizations.
If you want more precedent, see Pell grants, TEACH grants, and federal student loans....all paying for kids to be educated at private religious schools.
This action violates the OK state charter, not the Constitution. The question will be whether the Charter violates the Constitution.
Instantly.
They'll have the paperwork already filled out.
The question is whether or not that's really so bad.
If I was a car mechanic in Atoka and the local school didn't offer AP Calculus or AP Physics or some other course because there weren't enough kids enrolled, is it really the end of the world if I can enroll my kids in a Catholic school that offers all that? I don't think it is.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
Now if this does go to SCOTUS, IMO all bets are off since they have signaled that they are open to mixing the two. A few years ago the Epinoza vs Montana case was perhaps a prelude to anything re religion that comes before SCOTUS and Justice Thomas's writing in the past would seem to indicate they would agree with and not disagree with funding of religious schools.
Since that is a hypothetical question let's add this to it. What if that Catholic school required that the students take Catholic religious classes along with AP Calculus or Physics promoting the RCC and their belief system?
LOL, a religious school that teaches both science and religion...
I would expect that.
It's just like using a Pell Grant to go to a Christian college that requires kids to attend chapel.
Personally, I'm not worried about the Catholics converting my kid, so that's probably a trade off I would take.
You may feel differently, and we would both have the choice of where to send our kids.
You keep referring to Pell Grants which is college-level age group 18 and up. The situation in OK is K 12 and kids in the 1st, 2nd 3rd grade and up are the ones that would be exposed to religious classes, and when one complains about CRT and indoctrination nothing and I mean nothing compares to religious indoctrination by RCC or any other religion. All Christian religions take ''spreading the word'' and conversion as part of their duties with the exception of a few (Judaism etc). I would much rather have my kids exposed to CRT than any religious indoctrination.
Other than the age, what's the difference? We have public money funding education at private religious schools. Not unlike public money funding care at private religious hospitals, or public money funding refugee resettlement through private religious groups.
You have a choice not to send your kids to the charter school. Those people don't have a choice.
Judaism isn't a Christian religion, BTW.
In any case, you would have a choice to send your kids to the public school or the charter school. You can choose how they're indoctrinated.
I was referring back to your comment that you would not be concerned if your kid had to go to a catholic school and listen to the Catholic gospel. I was assuming that he was older based on the classes we were discussing. Would you feel the same way if the kid was in grade school listening to Catholic doctrine and indoctrination?
We are not discussing any of the other things you refer to, all of which I do not support.
I'm well aware that Judaism isn't a Christian religion the point was they do not try to convert non-Jews and usually when spoken about in the US it's Judo/Christian.
True, indoctrinated in a make believe religious world or indoctrianted in the real world.
they all want to meet geezus, just not right now...
Ridiculous, you are creating boogeymen where there are none.
boo hoo, is the new oath keepers shaking you down for another $50 because elmer blew their wad?
Lol, now there is a great example of a post that has nothing to do with the other. Where is the self righteous indignation now?
"opinions vary."
Lol ... the peewee Herman gambit ... typical weak assed sauce considering
trumpster veterans automatically qualify for the bonus round in the patriot games.
Why is it ridiculous? How splintered and tribal are Christians now? What makes you think it wouldn't get worse if the only choices were religious schools?
Religious schools have been getting government money for decades, and nothing like that seems to have happened. There is not some automatic hatred between Notre Dame graduates and Vanderbilt alumni. The University of Dallas manages to play Texas Lutheran multiple times/year without incident.
Let's not go overboard here.
IF this stands it breaks down the barriers between church and state even further. Those pushing the boundaries have already stated they don't want a barrier, they want their own brand of religion to be law, but they can't agree among themselves what brand it would be. It is precisely why there is separation in the first place.
The slippery slope argument isn't a good one. I'll admit it, but damn it! We've been sliding for a while now.
Why?
How come this "breaks down the barriers between church and state" but a kid at Baylor on a Pell Grant isn't a problem?
I think there is money used for religious institutions.
My problem with all of this is it is basically taking taxpayer funded money and instead of it going to a public system, it bypasses that system and gives the money directly to private institutions.
Public school money should go to exactly that. The public schools. If people want to set up grants or any of those things for kids to go to private school, I think that would be something else.
That's fair. That's exactly what it does.
Why?
Is the point of that money to uphold the institutions or to educate the kids?
If the institutions have failed the kids for decades (as they have), don't we have a responsibility to explore alternative channels?
Yet we have people that try to undermine what teachers can do, down to micro-managing classrooms. Administration afraid of loud parents.
Parents not giving a shit about their kids yet then raise holy hell with the school for them not learning. Teachers seem stuck not to be able to even discipline a class or get into trouble.
I was watching one of those crimes shows the other day and this one kid was a severe bully to everyone and his mother laughed about it and said, the other kids are just jealous because he is smart...
People suing the districts for weird infractions.
I don't see any of the ire directed to private institutions. Are they able to tell these parents to just shut the hell up?
Given the results, I'm not sure I can blame them. When they see their kids not learning to read, write, or do math, they're not going to just sit by and do nothing.
In my experience as a teacher and coach, you are describing two different sets of parents.
In a way, yeah. It's more along the lines of "This is how we educate kids at this school. If you don't like it, you are welcome to take your kid somewhere else."
Yet that is what they have been doing all along with their kids education, nothing.
So I guess when public schools are decimated and people are all going private, what happens to these kids and their parents if they get kicked out of every private institution?
Then make laws that these places must accept them?
If these places get to pick and choose their student body, what happens to the ones rejected?
If what is left of the public system is only regulated to students that won't be accepted anywhere else or just the severely troubled kids, how is that fair and equitable..
You just said they were micro-managing....
I'm not sure I care. If you've been kicked out of multiple schools, it seems like algebra is pretty low down on our list of worries.
Or maybe start to hold parents accountable.
That's the interesting conversation, and really the crux of the debate
For example, what about special needs kids? The simple fix is just to offer a higher funding rate for special needs or ESL or other more challenging students, but the simple fix for everything seems to be "more money".
The extreme case is as you describe, in that we end up with public schools full of special needs kids and kids whose parents DGAF, while all the star pupils are off at charter or private schools.
So the ethical/moral dilemma is whether or not it's OK to abandon low performing kids on their own or whether it's OK to allow them to hold the smarter kids back. There are valid points on both sides, BTW.
As a coach who worked with mostly low academic achievers for most of my 30 years, I can certainly see that side of the situation. But as a parent of two really high-achieving kids, I can see that side, too.
It's a technique. Reduced spending means poor results... that justify reducing spending.
The final solution is death for public services.
They are finally admitting what they want to do. Shame that republicans buy into the bullshit and work to do things that are detrimental to themselves.
I'm not sure how getting taxpayer dollars allocated toward an additional education option that they probably prefer is "detrimental to themselves"
Further, I'm not sure what causes you to think you know what's good for them better than they do.
I think a lot of people are dumb and would be better off not being handed a check.
There is a homeschool out there that proudly and openly teaches everything with a nazi bend. Why should my tax dollars go to that?
Free choice is an illusion. A scheme to do nothing more than help to render public schools obsolete.
Does that work for all the other things we give people money for?
Generally, school vouchers are limited to accredited schools. There is no reason to suspect this would be different.
Public schools have been obsolete for decades. I'm not sure how that's even in question. I would love for you to find a positive metric indicating an uptrend of any good thing happening in public schools. Seriously. It would be encouraging.
Over the years, public schools have simply become a government warehouse for kids while their parents can work... or not work and set some other questionable example for the kids.
So the question is, what do we do? We can keep throwing more and more money into outdated institutions full of people who cannot manage thought processes more modern than 1982, or we can try something more current.
I say we un-restrain teachers. Take off the shackles so to speak. Tell parents to shut the fuck up. Tell people complaining about curriculum to shut up. Tell people only worried about what books are in the libraries to get lost. Cut administration in half.
You're assuming the teachers will do a great job if left to their own devices. Some will. Others will absolutely not. One of the primary problems we've had in public education over the years is the nearly complete resistance among teachers to any form of empirical accountability.
My wife and I taught public school for 8 years, and my daughter is currently a PS teacher, so I know some of the tricks of the trade. By far the simplest way to make everybody think you're a fantastic teacher is to pad grades. Just lower the bar until it plummets through the floor. Everybody passes, and most kids get A's. All the parents think you're amazing because their child is "successful" under your guidance. (lol)
So when a teacher just gives out easy grades because they don't want to work hard, what happens? Because that WILL happen, far more often than most people want to believe.
Unfortunately, public schools are governed by the public. They have a right to speak, just like they have a right to march down Pennsylvania Avenue or park their lawn chairs outside the windows of the EPA offices. (We saw all that in DC last month.)
Private schools don't have that issue.
Interesting that you say that. Oklahoma (coming back to the article) has 512 school districts serving 658,000 kids. That's 509 superintendents. One superintendent for every 1293 kids (roughly).
Texas has 1022 districts serving 5.1 million students, or one superintendent per every 4990 kids.
By contrast, Florida has 69 districts (one per county) covering 2.8 million kids. That's one superintendent for every 40,500 kids.
So there is definitely some optimization to be done.
Brilliantly, an online charter school can scale significantly with exceedingly low overhead. They don't need more buildings, the electricity bill doesn't go up, they don't need more buses, bus drivers, custodians, assistant principals, groundskeepers... and they sure as fuck don't need a $70 million new football stadium.
.
Accountability? So you think teachers have none?
You are not the only one with educators in the family. Three people in my life that are teachers and one person that was a principal of a HS.
Sounds like you are blaming the union.
That you think having people run aroiund finding their own schools, some people getting rejected, having to find another place...
No stability.
So if I am hearing this right, I have to pay for kids to go to private schools and can have no say over what happens at the school.
If there is going to be equity in school funding, there should be equity with the students that get chosen for various schools.
I said "empirical accountability". And no, they don't.
Then you'll no doubt understand what the word "citation" means.
Citation? Do quote me using any reference to unions.
What are you talking about?
So wait... are you saying you have a say over what happens in schools and you allowed this shit to happen? No? Maybe not so much?
You pay for kids to go to public schools and have almost no say over what happens there, either. You can go down and shout at your school board or maybe run for a seat on it.
Really? Why?
What about the School for the Deaf? Or the Talented and Gifted Magnet. Or the Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School here in Dallas ISD? The Booker T Washington School for the Arts (also Dallas ISD)? The Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet?
None of those are charter schools, and I promise you there is no equity whatsoever with regard to admission. There are no dumb kids in the Science and Engineering Magnet.
Nobody seems to have a problem with any of those. Why is that?
Why do people not have a problem with a special school for disabled kids?
Seriously?
We are never going to see eye to eye on this so I am out, as all I see is justification for the actions as well as public schools should be done away with.
If you actually believe that and we should do away with public schools, there is nothing I can say.
You're the one demanding "equity".
Cite me saying so. Why do you keep making shit up?
I go by what you say. Forgive me for thinking you wanting to decimate funding for public schools is wanting to do away with them...
except he never once said that.
why make it up?
So we are just going to pretend that it won't happen. Ok...
you are free to assume or pretend whatever you wish but he never said what you claimed.
Inference is a subtly people engage in without having to be held accountable.
that inference is lacking severely.
Opinions do vary...
oh snap!
as do inferences and assumptions.
So If he says yes that schools funds should be use at other institutions, says that public schools have failed miserably, has said they are broken beyond repair and we need to look into other alternatives instead of fixing what we have....
I am wrong for thinking he wants to do away with public schools...
Ok....
ok then!
now you got it!
I get that people like to play with words and pretend they have no accountability.
yes you claimed he inferred something he didn't and don't want to take responsibility.
got it!
How is this not a direct and obvious violation of the 1st amendment?
Of course it is, but some will fight to keep it.
it's another demonstration of selective interpretation of the constitution to support indefensible dogma, as usual. the document they hide behind while attempting to dismantle it at the same time.
The lefts interpretation of the first amendment in this case is perhaps the most egregious misinterpretation of the constitution next to the BS they try to push on the 2nd.
What, specifically, do you mean by "the lefts interpretation of the first amendment"? What is this interpretation you speak of?
What "interpretation" are you referring? How is the "left" interpreting it? Be specific.
Its meta and off topic so this can be deleted if necessary, but -
I am getting tired of partisans just yelling to the effect of, "you lie" without putting up any supporting comment. It's lobbing bombs and running to the next comment. It's poking fingers into each others eyes for no other reason.
Please allow me to respectfully share with you some information that I wish had had access to many decades ago. It might have spared me the agony, and mental and physical abuse I've put up because I was being susceptible to and successfully played by a malignant personality. I will not use the term narcissist only because I am clinically certified to do so. However, after watching thousands of hours of videos and reading a lot of material on the subject of malignant personalities, the majority just don't have skills to communicate with others.
Disclaimer: I am not saying that everyone who disagrees has a malignant personality, but I really wish the US had free therapy for people with anger issues so maybe we could have more civil discourse and maybe arrive at better solutions that continually trying to one up each other.
The following video explains this much better than I can. This is the type of communication style that my husband and his flying monkeys have used with me for the last two decades. It has only gotten worse as he has aged. Currently, he is playing nice waiting to find any vulnerabilities in my communication or attitude that means he might be able to cross a boundary and get by with it. Ain't life grand?
The ACLU fought GW Bush's executive order to make it legal to funnel taxpayer money to religious organizations. It went nowhere. I used to rant about this on Newsvine. I had so many bookmarks about this and charter schools and "No Child Left Behind", etc. etc. The Bush family was also linked to some charter school operations in financial ways, but it has been so long I have forgotten the specifics. I deleted the bookmarks because what was really happening in US education was considered boring or so what as the forums moved on to discussing whatever the new hot button topic of the day was.
Thanks to you introducing me to the works of Robert Sapolsky, I have happily been spending the last few years on researching human biology and psychology. I'll never be more than an amateur at explaining any of it, but I am a very happy camper since I've gained a better understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the human brain.
I think it's probably fine as far as the 1st amendment goes. Governments have been spending public money at private religious institutions for decades. That doesn't establish a national religion or anything daft like that.
I think it's in trouble as far as the Oklahoma Education Charter, which specifically says non-sectarian.
Not likely :
You need to make a much more specific claim:
I presume you are making a reference to exceptions such as this:
This would need to be a new (and more powerful) type of exception.
Establishing a national religion is the most extreme interpretation of the 1st. The 1st also protects against the government favoring one or more religions over others. If money is granted for Catholic religious education then it would need to be equally funded for all various religions. To avoid this, the 1st has been used to NOT have government funding of religious activities.
Well... have they denied the charter for the Presbyterians? The Muslims? If so, then that's a problem. If not, they're not favoring anybody.
You mean kinda like how you can use a Teach Grant at any accredited university? Even ones that require classes in Old Testament and have mandatory chapel requirements? Sounds like it's all been worked out already.
Merely NOT denying (in theory) factors for other denominations, religions and category of religions is not the same as actual action favoring one of same.
This seed does not speak of government funding of schools regardless of religion but rather funding directed at a particular category of religion.
Now you leap to the other extreme and argue that since the government does not (unrealistically) use any (nit-picky) tie to religion to deny grants that the 1st amendment therefore allows funding of one religious organization over another.
So, the answer to you question is no.
Funding a school which, by design, focuses on a particular religion violates the 1st since it is unrealistic to attempt to have equal support for all religions. (That it, it is next to impossible to not have a net favoring occur.) Thus the practical interpretation of the 1st is for government to NOT favor any religion. Any movement that would favor one religion over another will hit serious constitutional objections.
As you quoted:
Publicly funding this, or any other, charter school doesn't violate the First Amendment by itself, since it doesn't a) establish a religion, b) does not require anyone to attend it and, c) doesn't favor one religion over another, at this point.
Further, as it stands now, the government has violated for years, the First Amendment, concerning this issue. By not funding religious schools they are preferring secular schools over religious schools, which is exactly what they aren't supposed to be doing. Instead, they punish parents who choose to send their children to a religious school. Not only do those parents have to fund public school systems their children do not attend, they have to pay additionally out of pocket for the school their children do attend.
Put another way, if the state collected taxes and established religious schools and allowed tax money only on them and any parent wanting to send their children to a secular charter school had to pay out of pocket for it, in addition to the taxes collected for religious schools, how unfair do you think that would be? The answer is obvious and has nothing to do with what the constitution says. We don't need a law to see the inherent and inarguable unfairness of such a situation. That is, regardless of what the First Amendment says, this is an example of something inherently unfair.
The hypothetical I just gave is actually not hypothetical. Just who benefits is. Otherwise, it's very much reality engendered by a twisting of what the First Amendment actually says and what it was intended to do. There is no violation here of the First Amendment.
On c) providing funds for one religion is favoring the religion. To not favor the religion, the government would have to provide equal funding to ALL religions and that is a practical impossibility. Thus sensible precedent has been for no religion to be favored.
You would have a point if the government were funding schools that promoted atheism and/or promoted anti-religion. Secular schools are not pushing atheism, rather, they focus on subjects other than religion (or irreligion). (It is inconvenient if science inadvertently makes some religions look bad; but that is not the intent of science nor is that the intent of teaching science.)
It would be paying for something that I want that is not provided through public means. My choice is to accept what everyone gets 'for free' publicly or to pay extra to get something different. I can deal with the USPS and benefit from the public support of same or, if I want different or better service, I can pay extra in the private sector.
Sure there is. Government favoring one religion over another is a violation of the 1st amendment. Either every religion must be given the same benefits (to avoid favoring) or no religion gains benefit. It is impractical to attempt to provide equal favor to ALL religions thus the only practical way to stay true to the 1st is to favor NONE. Note how ALL religions are tax-exempt, not just some. With taxes, there is a practical way to be equal. With funding, no such practical method exists.
absolute justification for means testing to level the religious playing field.
Except there's currently no evidence that only one religion is being favored. If another religion tries to get the same sort of deal and gets denied for obviously spurious reasons we can talk. Until then, this is irrelevant.
And the precedent hasn't been for no religion to be favored. The precedent has been for all religions to be denied.
That is a matter of perspective. You know it so I'm not going to bother with it.
There isn't a true thing in this. Public education isn't "free". I don't even have kids and the single largest portion of my property taxes (34% or more) goes to schools. It isn't free. And the USPS doesn't relate because it's a pay-to-play business, not something that is taken out of my taxes to pay for. It is literally the opposite of what actually occurs concerning funding education.
Great. Get back to me when you have evidence that the government is favoring one religion over another.
Okay? What's the problem, then? Are you thinking that the state has to build schools or something? That isn't the case. It isn't even the case that it has to cover all of a religious school's costs. It is the case that, thus far, government has favored secular, state funded schools and has been prejudiced against religious schools. That is a violation of the First Amendment.
There is no except here, Drakk. The problem exists as soon as government offers favor to one religion. To hold true to the 1st it must now equally favor ALL religions. So if Islam is next then government must provide equal funding for Islam schools. I have noted the impracticality of pursuing this route. The fact that the next domino has yet to fall does not change the fundamental problem I outlined.
However you wish to phrase it, the precedent is equality (favor or disfavor). That is ... no favoring of one religion over another.
Hardly. One can engage in an purely secular activity without pushing anti-theism. When public schools teach Mathematics, there is zero religious element and zero anti-theist element. The lack of a religious element does not ipso facto mean pushing anti-theism.
The quotes I used did not express that to you?
Nit-picking to deflect from the point. Use public libraries as the example. The point is that we can choose to use public services as they are or we can supplement them by paying in the private sector.
A clear indication that you will never recognize any favoritism.
No. Don't go on speculative tangents.
I have described the problem several times now. If ALL religions are NOT supported then that is both doable and equal. As soon as government starts providing support to one religion ... it must provide the same level of support to others otherwise it would favor one over the other. Tax breaks for ALL religions work because that can be equally applied by simple policy. Funding is an entirely different matter. Surely you would not be in favor of government giving every entity that declares itself a religious educational organization $25,000 (pick any amount)? Explain how government can realistically provide equal (non-favoritism) financial support to every religious educational organization.
Explain how government can realistically provide equal (non-favoritism) financial support to every religious educational organization.
You insist that secular education is a prejudice against religion. That is nonsense. Not teaching religion in public schools does not mean teaching anti-religion. It has been up to the families to teach other factors such as religion and culture.
You seem to want the 1st amendment to protect your ability to support whatever religion you want (rather than be imposed upon by the state) but also want the state to somehow provide equal support to any entity that declares itself a religious educational organization.
There is a fundamental problem of practicality that you need to address.
If you support public education teaching religion then how does it equally teach ALL religions? What is your approach (if you seek this)?
If you support government providing financial support to ALL religious educational organizations then how, exactly, is this accomplished in a practical sense while ensuring absolute equality (no favoritism)?
I'm not going to bother further with what's already been discussed. However, the following needs to be addressed.
Well, it's certainly nonsense, since I said no such thing. What I said was that government has been prejudiced against schools that have a religious component and therefore favor secularism over religion, something the First Amendment prohibits.
Since this strawman is not my argument, get someone else to answer it.
Strawman? You just wrote what I summarized but used more words:
You: government --(prejudice)--> religious schools therefore government favors secularism over religion
Me: government supporting secular education --(prejudice)--> religion
Both express your belief that government is prejudiced against religion.
Don't expect me to take you seriously when you employ dishonest tactics.
Government in the USA is demonstrably NOT prejudiced against religion. It grants religious organizations tax breaks and generally steers clear of controversies which might raise complaints about government interfering with religion.
Given the diversity of religions it is fair, practical, and sensible for government to NOT deal with religions and operate in a secular fashion.
when religious organizations and their members receive subsidies and/or tax credits, that creates a tax shortfall that has to be shared by all taxpayers, which includes those taxpayers without a religious affiliation. how is that fair or even constitutional?
their members? What non-religious non-profit entities are taxed?
is that what I stated? question somebody that wants to converse with you...
Don't recognize your 14 minute old quote"
As good of a dodge as any.
or some argue just to argue and just have to have the last word
just trying to save you some moderate aggravation...
The rules on this kind of thing are fairly well established.
For example... a religious group can host events in a public school building. The school simply has to keep the same rules for every religious group, publish them, and have a process for ensuring everybody is treated equally.
In this case, the OK state charter prohibits sectarian charter schools. So they are in violation of that law, not the 1st Amendment.
Only because this is the first one.
No. Not even close. Please demonstrate where this new board has rejected a similar application from a different religious group. Until then, there is no "one religious organization over another". It's merely a function of which application was approved first.
There is nothing stopping the Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists or anybody else from doing exactly what the Catholics are doing.
And yet the US Govt has been giving tuition vouchers for use at colleges "focusing on a particular religion" for decades. You do realize Baylor is a Baptist university, yes? You knew Loyola is Catholic? Some of these are dead giveaways.... Southern Methodist University, for example.
Every student qualifies for the same Pell Grant or Teach Grant or whatever other grant based on a numerical formula and then the funds are paid to the university.... just like how charter schools are funded in Oklahoma.
The US Govt has also been paying medical bills at religious hospitals for decades. It doesn't favor one religion over another, because everybody is paid on the same formula.
An example of the state not favoring one religion over another. Same rules for every religious group. I offered tax exemption as my example of this while stating that a practical method that can accommodate ALL religions is not the issue. The issue I have raised is when it is impractical to attempt to give equal treatment to ALL religions.
The issue of fair equal treatment, however, does exist. It existed in concept before this 'first one' so it does not matter if there are more dominos to fall (and there will be if this goes through) because we have no solution to accommodate ALL those dominos. Equal something for ALL or (by default) equal nothing for ALL.
Correct and that is fundamental to the point I have been making. They will follow suit (dominos) and government has no practical method for dealing EQUALLY with ALL.
The vouchers are not supporting a religion, they are simply not discriminating because a university has a particular religious focus. NOT discriminating EQUALLY for ALL universities can be accomplished. Again when a system can practically deal with ALL then it will not violate the 1st. If it cannot practically deal with ALL then to not violate the 1st it must not deal with any.
The key here is ALL or NONE. The 1st requires that government not favor select religions. Thus it must treat them all equally (in terms of religious matters). If it can treat them ALL EQUALLY (in terms of religious matters) then there is no 1st amendment issue. If it cannot do so, then to avoid violating the 1st government must EQUALLY do NOTHING (in terms of religious matters).
when religious organizations and their members receive subsidies and/or tax credits,
Hope that helps
Of course they do. Charter schools are funded based on an empirical formula. That will be the same regardless of what kind of school it is.
No. Let me refresh your memory.
Aside from the fact that secular education is by definition prejudiced against religion (i.e. any religious expression in the school system is vigorously suppressed to the extent that can be gotten away with) my argument has concerned the First Amendment and the government's favoritism of secular humanism, not the secular school system. I'm perfectly fine with the school system being secular as long as it is truly secular. Problem is, it isn't.
Whether you take me seriously is of no concern to me. What you say, does. You create a strawman, saying my position concerns teaching religion in the public school system.
Not only is this a strawman of what I have actually said, it's also a non sequitur. I've made no claim or demand about what is taught in public schools.
This is ending up as it usually does. I'm sure you're going to blame me for it. Whatever. I do note, however, that you don't actually ever address my argument. What do you suppose that means?
There is more to the equality problem then deriving a consistent equation to determine public funds per enrolled student. As I noted earlier, a rule such as "all religious organizations are tax exempt" would be a method of equal treatment.
The equality problem is not so easily solved by such rules. The problem is how to eliminate claims of favoritism (and thus 1st amendment violations / lawsuits) in each local area when government denies and/or executes oversight on charter schools. The core of the equality problem is: 'what constitutes a religion or religious teachings?' . This is an area government historically has avoided (or kept very lax rules) to avoid even the appearance of a 1st amendment violation.
In the spirit of equality for all religions:
The answer must be 'yes' to be compliant with the 1st. And that same answer will apply to any other educational organization that supports charter general education requirements but also teaches its own religious curriculum. The 'religious curriculum' is the core of the problem. A charter school that teaches a religious curriculum that is generally acceptable by the local culture will likely cause no issues. But it takes little effort to see how this can go badly.
Can the KKK (or any highly bigoted group) secure its own charter with its own 'religious curriculum' (one whose content is easy to imagine) and be supported with public funds just like a Roman Catholic school? If 'yes', does the government step in and deem the content of this 'religious curriculum' to NOT be religious and deny the charter?
Can the government deny a charter based on the content of extra curriculum of a proposed charter school?
The answer must be ‘no’ to be compliant with the 1st.
To be equal, the government cannot deny/limit charter based on the content of lawful extra 'religious' curriculum.
An odd definition. If education does not also teach religion you deem that being prejudiced against religion. Your i.e. makes a somewhat nuanced point about public education actively keeping religion out of the classroom. If you mean something like not allowing organized prayer in school then that makes good sense. If you mean not allowing someone to privately pray then on that I would agree with you. There is nothing wrong with a religious person acting individually; it is the organized teaching of a religion that is the problem.
As I noted, if you are to teach religion in public schools then which religion do you teach? It is impossible to teach all of them. And the teaching would need to be akin to how mythology is taught. Seems to me public schools have no realistic choice other than to be secular and teach general education: mathematics, history, composition, science, ...
But then you say you would be fine if the school system were truly secular. What is 'truly secular'?
As for the rest of your post, I have no more patience for your dishonest games. Engage in honest debate or move on.
You act like this hasn't already been solved. For every objection you raise, there is a longstanding guideline already in place in the university systems.
Schools are accredited by independent non-governmental agencies, just like colleges. If a university is not accredited, then you can't spend your federal grant dollars there. This won't be any different.
They teach Darwinism at Christian Universities, even if they don't necessarily believe it. If the kids at the Flat Earth school can pass the test on the prevailing theories of the creation of the universe but don't believe them to be true, then frankly that still puts them miles ahead of most of their public school counterparts.
Can the government deny a charter based on the content of extra religious curriculum of a proposed charter school?
Absolutely. For example, if the religious curriculum advocates illegal activity or something, the charter gets revoked pretty quickly.
Yeah I explicitly included 'legal' earlier and forget to include it in this question too.
Of course illegal activity would be obvious grounds for denying a charter.
Can the government deny a charter based on the non-illegal content of extra religious curriculum of a proposed charter school?
If they are teaching the things you describe, they're not going to get accredited.
I've been on accreditation teams before. The process is very thorough.
Again, if the school is teaching sound science courses and kids are passing tests and killing it with their SAT scores, and then the "extra" religious curriculum is something like "prevailing scientific theory states that humans evolved from apes, however we don't believe that's accurate because XYZ", then yes, they're going to get accredited and no, you can't pull their charter because of their religious views.
That's not any different than any of the hundreds of colleges that teach courses rooted in leftist political ideology that keep their accreditation and thus the federal grant money.
Indeed. Enter the cries of 1st amendment violations for denying the Scientology charter, et. al.
But if they are teaching the things I describe they will lose their charter.
Under normal circumstances we will have charter schools which meet testing requirements for the general curriculum and will be teaching more conventional (accepted) religious views such as those by the dominant religions in the USA (and major religions in the world such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, ...). The government can treat all of these religions equally because the religious content would not cause a denial.
But we cannot escape the vague definition of what constitutes religion and thus we run up against the 1st amendment as soon as a charter school is denied —even in part— based on the 'religious' content it would teach. So if we are going down this road we must either accept (and provide equal funding / benefits to) the cults, bizarre 'religions', and power-mongers like Scientology or government defines what constitutes a 'legitimate' religion (and runs up against the 1st from another angle).
And yet... we don't have any of those problems with the current systems of subsidizing religious schools.
Again, we've been subsidizing religious education for decades. The system is pretty well broken in.
Seems to me that creating a new charter school which satisfies general education requirements is substantially easier than creating an accredited university. That is, it is not likely we will see a Scientology university or University of Satan or ... because the barrier to entry is so high; but we could easily see local charter schools which teach these 'religions' (because the barrier is so low).
The opportunity for 'religions' by declaration only to abuse the system with local sponsored organizations is clearly there.
The problem remains ... either government defines what constitutes a 'religion' so that it can deny accreditation due to bad content without violating the 1st, or it allows any self-declared religion to teach its content.
What do you imagine "accreditation" looks like in Oklahoma these days?
I'm not sure why you continue to ignore the accreditation process for K-12 schools.
See for yourself.
We shall see what happens in the real world. Remember that Deepwater Horizon had a very excellent Environmental Impact Study... including protection for polar bears. Great documentation does not ensure anything real.
When has the Roman Catholic Church ever recognized a country's laws when it didn't have to. The Vatican is a law until itself and always has been.
Look at how the men in the RCC treat their own adherents. Why would anyone outside of the RCC allow their tax money to be used to indoctrinate their children into this system of slavery to church hierarchy?
Below are just recent examples of the news stories that were recommended to me on youtube today.
and
All this is is a land grab. The diocese is struggling and here is this valuable property they can snatch away from the nuns. The vatican f#@ked up with it's decision to go along with that bishop.
Of course. Is perfectly logical that it is about money.
Is there any male dominated society or organization where the women are allowed anything except the leftover crumbs?
Unless the RCC does away with the Pope being their God's rep on Earth, then won't the Catholics have to accept that the Pope was just handing out their God's justice based on church law?
Is there anything that the Pope could ever do that would be wrong in their God's eyes? When does their adherents' critical thinking skills override religious indoctrination enough to hold their ultimate leader accountable for abusing anyone or upholding abusing anyone - especially women and children?
With our present Supreme Court, nothing short of state ownership of churches and state employment of clergy would violate the First... and maybe not even that...
I have always been against charter schools from the time I learned about them during my years on Newsvine. It is and always has been a sham funneling money to investors at the expense of children's education. There are some really decent charter schools, but they have been the exception from the beginning unless things have changed in the last few years.
I have always believed the end goal was to fund Catholic schools because Catholic schools were closing due to their being less Catholic children in the US and a rising number of Catholic parents being too poor to fund the private tuition. The numbers of Catholic adherents in the US was only rising due to legal/illegal immigration from south of the border. Without public subsidies, these parents did not have the money to fund private Catholic religious schools.
The Catholic Church has dabbled in operating charter schools over the years, but chafed at having to provide a secular education. Whether they were actually secular is anyone's guess, but it did keep many of them operational as they changed laws and gained enough influence to "legally" receive taxpayer funds to teach their religion to children.
BTW, the Republicans were not responsible for the initial funding of charter schools. It was Democrat Bill Clinton. GW Bush is responsible for "No Child Left Behind" legislation that further starved public schools of taxpayer funds. GW Bush used an executive order to make it legal to fund taxpayer money to religious organizations. Every president since has continued to fund untold amounts of taxpayer money to religious organizations with the Catholic Church receiving the lion's share from the beginning. This has been a royal bipartisan screwing of the US taxpayer and to the detriment of our children and society.
This is what I remember from years of research and frustration hoping this day would never happen, but knowing it had been probably been set in motion decades before I ever had access to the internet to watch it unfold.
and in 2000...
most charter schools are a tax exempt scam just like most organized religions...
Charter schools here in the nation’s capital are very popular with minority families with at risk kids. They also tend to outperform DCPS.
Is there such a thing as a "good" religion?
History shows that religions promote far more division, hatred and war than peace and harmony.
Why would anyone want religion in school unless they were financially profiting from it?
Buddhism?
Reincarnation and improving oneself until Nirvana? Definitely the one I'd choose if I was disciplined enough to follow a religion.
I read your linked article and it started me on a web search for any academic studies longing at human history of warfare this century that finds specific causal relationships between religion and armed conflict.
I found The Encyclopedia of Wars, published a study fifteen years ago that looked at 1,763 wars throughout human history and it names 123 as 'religious in nature' or less the 7%. Matthew White's The Great Big Book of Horrible Things which used death count as the main criteria found 11 caused by religion.
I think that at least for modern wars, there are multiple reasons including opposition to a government, or economic, ideological, political or social systems of a state. The desire for more land and wealth belonging to another nation, ect.
I don't see non-religious countries as necessarily peaceful or more moral. Russia, North Korea, China as some examples.
Did Saddam Hussein gas and torture Kurds because of religious differences or out out his power trip?
Perhaps religious differences provide a simpler explanation than the more complex reasons that humans go to war.
What is most religion except a power trip by the leaders and their minions to lay out rules and control the lives of others from cradle to grave?
How does a child benefit from being taught there is a supernatural being watching their every move and judging their every thought?
Now add the religious leaders and their minions tactics in enforcing those "rules" as self-declared representatives of said supernatural being that cannot be challenged or questioned as long as they can keep control of the people indoctrinated into their sect of religion.
Keeping and adding minions and followers is not an easy task unless you can suppress free speech via government. Think Spanish Inquisition for just one little example of what has happened when the Roman Catholic Church controlled many heads of European countries throughout centuries. At one time, the Vatican had its own army, but eventually gained enough power to control the armies of kings and queens.
I don't see anything moral about religious countries. I don't see anything moral about suppression of human rights in the name of pleasing some group's supernatural being. The happiest, most progressive countries are non-religious currently - these are the Scandanavian countries.
I am not sure what went down in the Ottoman Empire, nor have I studied the Crusades. There are usually outliers, or red herrings, or some appeal to emotion on why it is perfectly acceptable to suppress basic human rights in the name of a religion, but I don't see where it is anything except slavery.
Depends on the religion and the denomination.
We seem to be straying from religion causes most wars.
some quick reads on why taxpayers need to revolt wasting their money on charter schools.
and we've already wasted enough money on charter schools. Is it any wonder that Roman Catholic Church wants in on the money?
Oklahomans need to be watching and auditing their reps that are turning their school systems into for profit businesses.
more from Forbes magazine. Some of the info may be redundant. Not sure if any of it will be behind a paywall if someone wants to read the entire article.
This fraud has been reported for years. For some reason, the taxpayers' interests seemed to be focused on other things.
The article has been up for three days and has run it's course.
I'll be closing it in an hour so if you have any last minute comments get to it.
Blat blat - blah blah blah....bippidy boppity BOOOOO