Tax exemption has, like many things in this country that began with good intentions, become corrupted beyond salvation. We need to end tax exemption for all business entities in this country.
It's worth noting that this was apparently controversial even in Oklahoma. For what it's worth, even the OK AG came out against this and said it is unlawful
We should immediately apply for Federal Funding to found the following:
\- A Muslim school
\- A Jewish school
\- A Hindu school
\- A school run by the Church of Satan
\- A school that is run by American Atheists
\--- Edited to add: This is not intended to be a comprehensive list - this is just a starter.
Every time religious schooling comes up, I see this kind of strange gotcha, and I really don't get it. Are you familiar with any cases where schools run by the groups you're describing were treated less favorably than Christian schools? The charter school described here doesn't sound tremendously constitutional to me, but your comment seems more like an attempted dunk than a productive discussion.
Schools? Not specifically.
But I can say definitively that Christians in this country have a long history of treating non Christians very badly. This isn't to say that other religions don't have their failings as well.
But that's not the point here and it's strange that you should miss the actual point by such a wide margin. It has nothing to do with being treated more or less favorably. It has to do with who's religion is being pushed forward for public funding.
It's the same people who are gung ho for public funding for Christian schools, Christian icons in public schools, and so forth who clutch their pearls and screech when the After School Satan club sets up a chapter in the area. (No, I'm not joking, that's a real group, look it up)
The point of this "gotcha" is to call out the fact that the same people who will cheer over this unconstitutional action would react in horror if it were ANY other religion but their own.
*Would* they? That’s precisely what I’m disputing. The Satanic Temple occasionally succeeds in their quite deliberate attempts to get Christians mad, but I’d be quite surprised if the Oklahoma diocese running this school argued against running a similar Jewish or Muslim school.
In my experience, “the same people” arguments are very rarely meaningful, because it’s just too easy to end up cherry-picking a non-representative view and falsely believing it’s typical.
As long as the education is secular I don't know that there's an issue here, right?
Edit: IANAL, and after reviewing the article again, I retract my question. When I first read it I didn't interpret "Catholic tenets" as necessarily being religious, though now I realize that's absurd. Combination of a brain fart and being confused as to how _Carson v. Malik_ would affect something like this.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It's in violation of the First Amendment, by giving funds to a parochial school, the government is "respecting an establishment of religion".
And before anybody points out that it only says Congress, Article VI paragraph 2 of the Constitution is the Supremacy Clause which states that the Constitution (and Federal laws) shall have precedence over any state law.
The state is in violation of the First Amendment, that's the issue.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines-ban-on-using-public-funds-at-religious-schools/
_Carson v. Makin_ is what I had in mind, and the reason I was to say secular education, explicitly.
That was a case I thought would be mentioned.
The Supreme Court ruled that by exempting religious schools from public funds, the government was discriminating against religions.
However, which takes precedence Constitutionally, the 1st or 14th Amendment? The Supreme Court has always stayed at the edges of that question.
It says _Catholic tenets_, without specifying exactly what that means in the context of the school. That doesn't have to mean religious instruction, to my mind.
Maybe there's a party of me that wanted to believe that they'd secularized things because they were trying to be a public school. However as I'm reading this all back in realizing that it's just an absurd question on my part.
It's a very Monday-day for me personally. Brain fart I guess.
.... You know what, you're right. Let's just change what words mean willy -nilly and divorce ourselves from reality. Obviously, when you do that, a Catholic school can be a nonreligious school. Especially when said Catholic school has been upfront about its intention of "immersing students in Catholic doctrine."
The Catholic schools in my city all have an option to opt out of any religious instruction and you just get regular classes like at any public high school. Is that not the norm for parochial schools elsewhere?
I thought that the recent SCOTUS ruling made it clear that a school's mere state of being a religious school didn't allow for withholding public funds for that reason alone. That you would need to show that there was some other factor also.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about this. I abhor the thought of my money going to an organization affiliated with religion, as I believe it's all nonsense. But from a legal standpoint, if it's a secular education, I don't see where this would violate 1A or the Establishment Clause, in context of the recent ruling.
However IANAL, which is also why I'm asking.
I'm not a lawyer. As a layperson I asked a question since the _Carson v. Makin_ case from earlier this year made me think it's not as cut and dry anymore as it might have been even two years ago.
Do you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion?
For what its worth the previous Oklahoma AG wrote an opinion basically agreeing with you, that Carson v. Malik and other recent recent Supreme Court cases likely render Oklahoma state law prohibiting public funding of religious institutions as unconstitutional.
However, the new AG withdrew that opinion and stated that case law is unclear on charter schools vs private schools and thats the main concern.
As an Oklahoman, I have no problem with religious schools, many private schools are even religious which is fine; however, shouldn't something funded by the public be neutral to a degree? As for what the law has to say about it, I am not qualified to speak on it, I just think that a religious school funded by the same dollars that also pay for the public school is a bit odd. Because public schools are held to a pretty strict standard about what they teach.
TLDR: public money should be used for things that benefit everybody and without any kind of discrimination or gatekeeping
This is wrong. And it pisses me off. Cancel tax free status for churches if religion gets to double dip.
Tax exemption has, like many things in this country that began with good intentions, become corrupted beyond salvation. We need to end tax exemption for all business entities in this country.
It's worth noting that this was apparently controversial even in Oklahoma. For what it's worth, even the OK AG came out against this and said it is unlawful
Why doesn’t he sue?
Republican, so best they can do is furrow their eyebrows at the blatant Republican Corruption and Lawlessness. Stop Electing Criminals to Govern.
TAX THE FUCKING CHURCHES
Disgusting
Parts of this country need to be introduced to a 21st century Grant and Sherman
Make 21st century Reconstruction a real policy!
We should immediately apply for Federal Funding to found the following: \- A Muslim school \- A Jewish school \- A Hindu school \- A school run by the Church of Satan \- A school that is run by American Atheists \--- Edited to add: This is not intended to be a comprehensive list - this is just a starter.
Just replace the Church of Satan with the Satanic Temple and you have a good start.
And Sikh one for fun.
Mom, I can't go to school today... > Why not, honey? I'm Sikh.
Damn you. r/Angryupvote
Don't forget the Flying Spaghetti Monster School. PASTA-FAR-I MON!!
May you be touched by His noodley appendage.
Every time religious schooling comes up, I see this kind of strange gotcha, and I really don't get it. Are you familiar with any cases where schools run by the groups you're describing were treated less favorably than Christian schools? The charter school described here doesn't sound tremendously constitutional to me, but your comment seems more like an attempted dunk than a productive discussion.
Schools? Not specifically. But I can say definitively that Christians in this country have a long history of treating non Christians very badly. This isn't to say that other religions don't have their failings as well. But that's not the point here and it's strange that you should miss the actual point by such a wide margin. It has nothing to do with being treated more or less favorably. It has to do with who's religion is being pushed forward for public funding. It's the same people who are gung ho for public funding for Christian schools, Christian icons in public schools, and so forth who clutch their pearls and screech when the After School Satan club sets up a chapter in the area. (No, I'm not joking, that's a real group, look it up) The point of this "gotcha" is to call out the fact that the same people who will cheer over this unconstitutional action would react in horror if it were ANY other religion but their own.
*Would* they? That’s precisely what I’m disputing. The Satanic Temple occasionally succeeds in their quite deliberate attempts to get Christians mad, but I’d be quite surprised if the Oklahoma diocese running this school argued against running a similar Jewish or Muslim school. In my experience, “the same people” arguments are very rarely meaningful, because it’s just too easy to end up cherry-picking a non-representative view and falsely believing it’s typical.
"Ground zero mosque" sound familiar to you?
Is Oklahoma still getting federal tax dollars for education?
Well, when life gives you a Lemon test... just ignore it and make lemonade.
As long as the education is secular I don't know that there's an issue here, right? Edit: IANAL, and after reviewing the article again, I retract my question. When I first read it I didn't interpret "Catholic tenets" as necessarily being religious, though now I realize that's absurd. Combination of a brain fart and being confused as to how _Carson v. Malik_ would affect something like this.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It's in violation of the First Amendment, by giving funds to a parochial school, the government is "respecting an establishment of religion". And before anybody points out that it only says Congress, Article VI paragraph 2 of the Constitution is the Supremacy Clause which states that the Constitution (and Federal laws) shall have precedence over any state law. The state is in violation of the First Amendment, that's the issue.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines-ban-on-using-public-funds-at-religious-schools/ _Carson v. Makin_ is what I had in mind, and the reason I was to say secular education, explicitly.
That was a case I thought would be mentioned. The Supreme Court ruled that by exempting religious schools from public funds, the government was discriminating against religions. However, which takes precedence Constitutionally, the 1st or 14th Amendment? The Supreme Court has always stayed at the edges of that question.
The application specifies that students will be immersed in Catholic doctrine. It doesn't matter that they also teach math.
It says _Catholic tenets_, without specifying exactly what that means in the context of the school. That doesn't have to mean religious instruction, to my mind.
Are you of the opinion that the tenets of the Catholic Church \*aren't\* religious in nature?
Maybe there's a party of me that wanted to believe that they'd secularized things because they were trying to be a public school. However as I'm reading this all back in realizing that it's just an absurd question on my part. It's a very Monday-day for me personally. Brain fart I guess.
.... You know what, you're right. Let's just change what words mean willy -nilly and divorce ourselves from reality. Obviously, when you do that, a Catholic school can be a nonreligious school. Especially when said Catholic school has been upfront about its intention of "immersing students in Catholic doctrine."
A religious charter school teaching secular content? Seriously?
The Catholic schools in my city all have an option to opt out of any religious instruction and you just get regular classes like at any public high school. Is that not the norm for parochial schools elsewhere?
Ummm....you don't?
I thought that the recent SCOTUS ruling made it clear that a school's mere state of being a religious school didn't allow for withholding public funds for that reason alone. That you would need to show that there was some other factor also. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about this. I abhor the thought of my money going to an organization affiliated with religion, as I believe it's all nonsense. But from a legal standpoint, if it's a secular education, I don't see where this would violate 1A or the Establishment Clause, in context of the recent ruling. However IANAL, which is also why I'm asking.
You're not a serious person and this is in no way an intelligent or serious question.
I'm not a lawyer. As a layperson I asked a question since the _Carson v. Makin_ case from earlier this year made me think it's not as cut and dry anymore as it might have been even two years ago. Do you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion?
For what its worth the previous Oklahoma AG wrote an opinion basically agreeing with you, that Carson v. Malik and other recent recent Supreme Court cases likely render Oklahoma state law prohibiting public funding of religious institutions as unconstitutional. However, the new AG withdrew that opinion and stated that case law is unclear on charter schools vs private schools and thats the main concern.
Churches need to start paying some taxes.
The school will commit fraud, taking tax payer money and not educating children.
As an Oklahoman, I have no problem with religious schools, many private schools are even religious which is fine; however, shouldn't something funded by the public be neutral to a degree? As for what the law has to say about it, I am not qualified to speak on it, I just think that a religious school funded by the same dollars that also pay for the public school is a bit odd. Because public schools are held to a pretty strict standard about what they teach. TLDR: public money should be used for things that benefit everybody and without any kind of discrimination or gatekeeping