Oklahoma Constitution - Section II-5: Seems pretty obvious this is against the Oklahoma constitution. Like I don't see how there is any wiggle room there. Any Oklahoma state judge that ignores...
Section II-5: Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated,
applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use,
benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system
of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest,
preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or
sectarian institution as such.
Seems pretty obvious this is against the Oklahoma constitution. Like I don't see how there is any wiggle room there. Any Oklahoma state judge that ignores this should be removed from the bench.
With the fading of the line that separates church and state, and the conservative super majority in SCOTUS, I don't think it's an unreasonable fear that this is not overturned, and a scary...
With the fading of the line that separates church and state, and the conservative super majority in SCOTUS, I don't think it's an unreasonable fear that this is not overturned, and a scary precedent is set wherein public funds are used to fund religious schools. I was listening to the NPR report on this story this morning, and I'm very hopeful that discrimination against those of other faiths successfully upholds the injunction. But I have no doubt this will end up in SCOTUS.
Oklahoma Constitution - Section II-5:
Seems pretty obvious this is against the Oklahoma constitution. Like I don't see how there is any wiggle room there. Any Oklahoma state judge that ignores this should be removed from the bench.
With the fading of the line that separates church and state, and the conservative super majority in SCOTUS, I don't think it's an unreasonable fear that this is not overturned, and a scary precedent is set wherein public funds are used to fund religious schools. I was listening to the NPR report on this story this morning, and I'm very hopeful that discrimination against those of other faiths successfully upholds the injunction. But I have no doubt this will end up in SCOTUS.
There is an interesting discussion about it on r/supremecourt (the comparatively more conservative subreddit as opposed to r/scotus)