A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling has preserved, at least temporarily, a hallmark of our system of government — the separation of church and state.
The vote, deadlocked at 4-4, preserved a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that blocked that state from using government money to run the first religious charter school in the country.
The ruling was a surprise to many, given the court’s conservative bent.
Despite being hailed by some as a victory, the tie vote means the issue may return to the court as advocates for religion-based charter schools continue to push their agenda of financing these institutions with taxpayer money. A publicly funded religious charter school would have obliterated the wall of separation between state and church. We’re relieved that, at least for now, the First Amendment still means what it says. Annie Laurie Gaylor, Freedom from Religion Foundation
A contentious issue for years, it has been overshadowed by other cases clogging the court dockets, such as those over diversity, equity and inclusion; immigration; and mass government firings. But make no mistake: It is no less crucial to our democracy.
The Founding Fathers worked laboriously to prevent any collision between the religious and secular worlds, and undermining that tenet of American values would undermine the nation itself.
“A publicly funded religious charter school would have obliterated the wall of separation between state and church,” Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, said in a statement. “We’re relieved that, at least for now, the First Amendment still means what it says.”
The Oklahoma case involved the attempt by St. Isidore of Seville, a Catholic virtual school, to seek government funding as a charter school, which that state’s high court rejected.
Allowing St. Isidore to receive public funding as a charter school “would open the floodgates and force taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the church of Satan,” said Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican who went against his party’s prevailing stance.
Charter schools are allowed to receive public funding, Drummond argued, but only if their curriculum remains secular. St. Isidore’s intention to focus on religious training rendered public financing of it unconstitutional, he said.
“Oklahoma’s charter schools bear all of the hallmarks of a public school identified by this court and more,” Drummond told the U.S. Supreme Court.
In addition, a ruling for St. Isidore would have siphoned money from public schools, funding they could ill afford to lose. Religious training has a place in America, no doubt, but not when it hurts children in proper public schools.
It’s notable that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, recused herself from the case. While she did not state a reason for her recusal, she is a close friend of a law professor who advised St. Isidore.
She deserves kudos for her decision. Other members of the court have plowed through rulings despite more troubling conflicts, including Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who have refused to recuse themselves despite receiving gifts from rich Republican donors involved in or with an interest in the outcomes of certain cases.
Religious freedom is a bedrock of our system, and while conservatives claimed the charter school would have reinforced that bedrock, the opposite is true. Allowing the government to finance religious institutions would give politicians a gateway to a realm they have no business entering. Spiritual matters are personal, not political.
