I'd be interested in getting your opinions, and if you haven't listened to the oral arguments, it's on YouTube. It's interesting stuff as a father with school aged children.

I haven't read the particulars, only listed blind to the arguments. So hopefully someone can keep me honest if I'm not capturing something correctly

St. Isadore is a Catholic charter school in OK whose charter was subsequently pulled because it's a religious school, and the question is whether or not the program can place an exclusion on religious sects from receiving a charter.

The crux of argument against the exclusion is that you can't open a government program up to private applicants, and then reject the applicant on a religious basis. That they could have set the charter program up in a such a way that it was not privately operated In which case the school wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

The argument in favor of the exclusion seemed to hinge on whether or not charter schools are public schools. The argument goes that the school is a creature of the state, therefore it's a public school. As such they can forbid the teaching of religious precepts as truth.

I'm biased because I'm Catholic, we homeschool, and I have a strong dislike for the public schools as an institution. No surprise that I thought the argument that the Catholic school should be able to receive a charter under this program was more compelling, and the men arguing were better at their jobs than the other guys.

Curious what y'all think.

Would you feel the same if it was a Muslim school?

My starting position is no public money to religious based schools, but I am open to being swayed.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Would you feel the same if it was a Muslim school?

---

That exact thing was discussed because it was written I think by someone involved in the decision to pull the charter, and it turns out that the justices don't take kindly to discrimination against a particular religion as a justification for rejecting another religion's application.

sam callahan said:

---

My starting position is no public money to religious based schools, but I am open to being swayed.

---

Well that ship has sailed with vouchers. Public money going to religious based schools is not even at issue here apparently.

Don't normal, non-religious charter schools get to deny admission also? If so, why not the religious school while still receiving funding? I've always seen Charter schools like private institutions for this reason so I see no problem with including a religious school under this umbrella also.

Bob Lee said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Would you feel the same if it was a Muslim school?

---

That exact thing was discussed because it was written I think by someone involved in the decision to pull the charter, and it turns out that the justices don't take kindly to discrimination against a particular religion as a justification for rejecting another religion's application.

---

I think her question is whether YOUR view would change if it was a Muslim school and not a Catholic school.

Ed Harley said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Would you feel the same if it was a Muslim school?

---

That exact thing was discussed because it was written I think by someone involved in the decision to pull the charter, and it turns out that the justices don't take kindly to discrimination against a particular religion as a justification for rejecting another religion's application.

---

I think her question is whether YOUR view would change if it was a Muslim school and not a Catholic school.

---

What would be the rationale for changing my view? It would mean Catholics could open a school under the same charter program.

I would be more OK with limiting the religious curriculum of charter schools than limiting the inclusion of religious institutions with having charter schools.

I don't want my taxpayer money going towards teaching Wahhabism, but have no problem at all with a charter school that is run by a Muslim masque.

Policing this would be sticky, but I think that would be a better way to do it.

Maybe make the catechism stuff optional to the regular school day, and taught by teachers that are not paid extra by the school for doing so.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Would you feel the same if it was a Muslim school?

---

That exact thing was discussed because it was written I think by someone involved in the decision to pull the charter, and it turns out that the justices don't take kindly to discrimination against a particular religion as a justification for rejecting another religion's application.

---

I think her question is whether YOUR view would change if it was a Muslim school and not a Catholic school.

---

What would be the rationale for changing my view? It would mean Catholics could open a school under the same charter program.

---

So you would have no problems if Muslims opened a charter Madrassa that ensured it fulfilled the state mandated curriculum?

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Would you feel the same if it was a Muslim school?

---

That exact thing was discussed because it was written I think by someone involved in the decision to pull the charter, and it turns out that the justices don't take kindly to discrimination against a particular religion as a justification for rejecting another religion's application.

---

I think her question is whether YOUR view would change if it was a Muslim school and not a Catholic school.

---

What would be the rationale for changing my view? It would mean Catholics could open a school under the same charter program.

---

So you would have no problems if Muslims opened a charter Madrassa that ensured it fulfilled the state mandated curriculum?

---

I wouldn't send my kids to it or anything. But then, I wouldn't send my kids to the public schools either and yet, I'm compelled to give my money to the state to fund them. We should probably stop letting people immigrate here from Muslim countries. I don't think it's great that there are enough Muslims in Oklahoma to apparently justify multiple madrasas there. We have to play the hand we're dealt.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Would you feel the same if it was a Muslim school?

---

No, I am only supportive of Christian schools. This is a Christian nation. Do you disagree with that?

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Would you feel the same if it was a Muslim school?

---

That exact thing was discussed because it was written I think by someone involved in the decision to pull the charter, and it turns out that the justices don't take kindly to discrimination against a particular religion as a justification for rejecting another religion's application.

---

I think her question is whether YOUR view would change if it was a Muslim school and not a Catholic school.

---

What would be the rationale for changing my view? It would mean Catholics could open a school under the same charter program.

---

So you would have no problems if Muslims opened a charter Madrassa that ensured it fulfilled the state mandated curriculum?

---

I wouldn't send my kids to it or anything. But then, I wouldn't send my kids to the public schools either and yet, I'm compelled to give my money to the state to fund them. We should probably stop letting people immigrate here from Muslim countries. I don't think it's great that there are enough Muslims in Oklahoma to apparently justify multiple madrasas there. We have to play the hand we're dealt.

---

You do realize you're funding both the Catholic charter schools and would be funding the Madrassas, right?

Kaa98 said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Would you feel the same if it was a Muslim school?

---

No, I am only supportive of Christian schools. This is a Christian nation. Do you disagree with that?

---

In public education?

Yes I disagree with that.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Would you feel the same if it was a Muslim school?

---

That exact thing was discussed because it was written I think by someone involved in the decision to pull the charter, and it turns out that the justices don't take kindly to discrimination against a particular religion as a justification for rejecting another religion's application.

---

I think her question is whether YOUR view would change if it was a Muslim school and not a Catholic school.

---

What would be the rationale for changing my view? It would mean Catholics could open a school under the same charter program.

---

So you would have no problems if Muslims opened a charter Madrassa that ensured it fulfilled the state mandated curriculum?

---

I wouldn't send my kids to it or anything. But then, I wouldn't send my kids to the public schools either and yet, I'm compelled to give my money to the state to fund them. We should probably stop letting people immigrate here from Muslim countries. I don't think it's great that there are enough Muslims in Oklahoma to apparently justify multiple madrasas there. We have to play the hand we're dealt.

---

You do realize you're funding both the Catholic charter schools and would be funding the Madrassas, right?

---

Why do you think that should bother me any more than being made to fund secular schools?

Why should I be fine that a native american cultural school gets public funding, or any other interest group, but just not Catholics or an other religion?

Interesting dynamics at play. Oklahoma AG and Supreme Court all of whom I assume are conservative were against the school.

When the state creates a public benefit, it can't exclude on the basis of religion.


Barrett recused herself on this case, so it comes down to Roberts. He wrote the opinion in Carson v Makin which said states can't exclude religious schools from a tuition payment program.

Quote:

---

Oklahoma AG and Supreme Court all of whom I assume are conservative were against the school.

---

Our Supreme Court isn't anywhere near as conservative as our state. The appointment process limits how much influence a governor has.

And our AG, Drummond, runs a more conservative campaign than his actions. Not unusual as you can't win otherwise and no where near as bad as many in the Texas Legislature.

4-4 decision by SCOTUS, Oklahoma Supreme Court decision is affirmed. Ruling applies to Oklahoma only because of the tie. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-394_9p6b.pdf

Not really affirmed. A tie doesn't set any kind of precedent. It just leaves the earlier ruling in place.

The issue will be back before the court again sooner or later from another state.

And Barrett recused herself because she has a relationship with one of the plaintiffs.

Also, seems like the Court watchers think Roberts, or less likely Kavanaugh, was the 4th vote with the three leftist harpies.