SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
religion
US Supreme Court Could OK Religious Public Charter School in Oklahoma
"Allowing taxpayer dollars to fund religious charter schools would put both public education and religious freedom at risk," warned one teachers union leader.
Apr 30, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments over what could become the country's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school—and opponents of the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School renewed their warnings about the proposal.
Faith leaders, parents, and educators celebrated last June, when the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against establishing St. Isidore. The test case for all such schools has now advanced to the country's highest court, which has a right-wing supermajority.
Reporting on over two hours of arguments Wednesday, Law Dork's Chris Geidner wrote that "the religious supremacy movement from the right's majority on the U.S. Supreme Court—with its outside helpers—appeared likely to... OK the first religious charter school in the country."
"Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh appeared eager to do so, and Justice Neil Gorsuch's past writing in a related case signaled his alignment with the move, at least in principle," Geidner detailed. "Chief Justice John Roberts—the key vote then since Justice Amy Coney Barrett has recused herself from the case—appeared to be open to the idea as well."
Other legal reporters also concluded that Roberts appears to be the "key vote," given that the three liberals—Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—all "expressed significant reservations" about allowing a religious charter school.
It appears very likely that the Supreme Court will force Oklahoma to approve and fund a Catholic charter school that reserves the right to indoctrinate students in Catholicism, force them to attend mass, and discriminate against non-Catholics. The three liberals sound increasingly exasperated.
— Mark Joseph Stern ( @mjsdc.bsky.social) April 30, 2025 at 11:52 AM
According toThe Associated Press:
If Roberts sides with the liberals, the court would be tied 4-4, an outcome that would leave the state court decision in place, but would leave the issue unresolved nationally.
If he joins his conservative colleagues, on the other hand, the court could find that the taxpayer-funded school is in line with a string of high court decisions that have allowed public funds to flow to religious entities. Those rulings were based on a different part of the First Amendment that protects religious freedom.
Roberts wrote the last three of those decisions. He acknowledged at one point that the court had previously ruled that states "couldn't exclude religious participants," suggesting support for St. Isidore.
But he also said the state's involvement in this case is "much more comprehensive" than in the earlier ones, a point that could lead him in the other direction.
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in a statement after the arguments that "we respect religious education and the Founders' intention in separating church and state."
"Public schools, including public charter schools, are funded by taxpayer dollars because they are dedicated to helping all—not just some—children have a shot at success," the union leader said. "They are the bedrock of our democracy, and states have long worked to ensure that they remain secular, open, and accessible to all. They are not, and never have been, Sunday schools."
"The petitioners are seeking to change that," Weingarten warned. "Religious schools should be able to operate in the U.S., but they are not public schools, and they shouldn't be able to get the benefits and the funding yet ignore the obligations and responsibilities."
"Our hope is that the justices will uphold the Supreme Court of Oklahoma's decision, correctly siding with religious pluralism over sectarianism," she concluded. "A reversal would be a devastating blow to public education and the 90% of young people who rely on it. We must preserve and nurture the roots of our democracy, not tear up its very foundations."
The country's other leading teachers union also opposes the establishment of the Oklahoma school. National Education Association president Becky Pringle said in a statement this week that "every student—no matter where they live, what they look like, or their religion—deserves access to a fully funded neighborhood public school that gives them a sense of belonging and prepares them with the lessons and life skills they need."
"Allowing taxpayer dollars to fund religious charter schools would put both public education and religious freedom at risk," Pringle asserted, "opening the door to more privatization that undermines our public education system."
Proud to join @faithfulamerica.bsky.social outside of SCOTUS ahead of oral arguments in the OK religious charter school case, which challenges whether public funds can be used to support religious charter schools. As religious Americans, we say the separation of church and state is good for both!
[image or embed]
— Interfaith Alliance (@interfaithalliance.org) April 30, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Chris Yarrell, an attorney at the Center for Law and Education, similarly warned in a Common Dreams opinion piece earlier this month that "if the court sides with St. Isidore, the ripple effects could be seismic, triggering a wave of religious charter school applications and fundamentally altering the landscape of public education."
In addition to fighting for a taxpayer-funded religious school, Christian nationalists in Oklahoma want to put Bibles in public school classrooms—an effort the state Supreme Court has temporarily impeded.
The court last month blocked Oklahoma's superintendent of public instruction, Ryan Walters, and education department from spending taxpayer dollars on Bibles and Bible-infused instructional materials.
“This victory is an important step toward protecting the religious freedom of every student and parent in Oklahoma," legal groups supporting plaintiffs who challenged the policy
said at the time. "Walters has been abusing his power, and the court checked those abuses today. Our diverse coalition of families and clergy remains united against Walters' extremism and in favor of a core First Amendment principle: the separation of church and state."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Arkansas Faith Leaders Urge Lawmakers to Reject Bill Forcing Schools to Display Ten Commandments
"We do not need to—and indeed should not—turn public schools into Sunday schools."
Mar 31, 2025
A group of 42 Arkansas faith leaders on Monday called on the General Assembly to reject Republican-led legislation that would force every classroom in the state to display the Ten Commandments and the national motto, "In God We Trust."
"We are faith leaders from across Arkansas who value religious freedom for all. We urge you to vote against S.B. 433, which would require the display of a government-selected version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom of all elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools and in every other public building or facility maintained with taxpayer funds," a letter to lawmakers signed by the 42 clerics states. The bill was passed by the state Senate on March 19 by a vote of 27-4.
"A government mandate that the Ten Commandments be displayed in all government buildings demeans religious freedom."
State Sen. Jim Dotson (R-34), one of the bill's primary sponsors, called the Ten Commandments "a historical reference point... that has basic things like you shall not kill, steal, commit adultery, those basic foundations of life that is good for everybody to keep front of mind so that we are hopefully living good lives."
However, the faith leaders—41 Christians and one Jew—said that "S.B. 433 is a misguided effort that undermines the faith and freedom we cherish."
"A government mandate that the Ten Commandments be displayed in all government buildings demeans religious freedom," their letter asserts. "The government oversteps its authority when it dictates an official state-approved version of any religious text. The government must respect the rights of individuals and faith communities to make decisions about the sacred texts that inform our religious understandings and practices."
"We do not need to—and indeed should not—turn public schools into Sunday schools," the signers continued. "We remain steadfast and united in affirming the values of religious freedom that are foundational to our democracy and will continue to push back against attempts to impose a singular religious viewpoint into our public institutions."
"Finally, we recognize that the Ten Commandments hold no religious meaning for thousands of Arkansans," the letter acknowledges. "The Ten Commandments are held in a different light for Arkansans who are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Unitarian Universalist, or who practice other religions or no religion at all."
Rev. Brittany Stillwell, associate pastor with students and families at Second Baptist Church in Little Rock, said in a statement that "as a Christian, I understand the Ten Commandments as holy and worthy of contemplation and I take them very seriously."
"They do not, however, belong in schools and other public spaces as a kitschy symbol of a shallow faith," she added. "I don't want the students I pastor to become desensitized to the holiness and reverence they are due. Religious liberty protects scripture from the whims of the government so that it might remain the elevated word from God we hold so dear."
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship director of advocacy Rev. Jennifer Hawks said that "growing up, I spent Easter weekends at my family's homestead in Bearden. My Arkansas aunts, uncles, and cousins played a crucial role in my spiritual formation and never needed the government to define for them Christian teachings or practices."
"When the state writes a CliffsNotes version of a religious text and mandates its use, we all lose," Hawks added, referring to the once-ubiquitous series of student study guides. "The state should not waste time trying to usurp our families and religious institutions. Leave religious instruction to us and don't turn public schools into Sunday schools."
Other Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed or introduced bills requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools or other government buildings. Last year, Louisiana became the only state to fully enact such legislation. However, last November, a federal judge blocked the law, calling it "unconstitutional on its face and in all applications."
Groups including the ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation oppose such bills, and faith leaders in other states including Missouri and Texas have also urged lawmakers to reject bills similar to Arkansas' S.B. 433.
While campaigning last year, U.S. President Donald Trump—who critics say has violated at least half of the commandments—expressed support for mandatory classroom display of the divine dicta.
In June 2017, a Ten Commandments monument was installed on the grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol. A day later, Michael Tate Reed II drove his car into the granite slab, destroying it. The monument was rebuilt with concrete bollards added for protection. Reed—who hads previously wrecked a similar monument at Oklahoma's Capitol—was later acquitted on mental health grounds.
In response to the Arkansas monument, the Satanic Temple fought for and won the right to install a statue of Baphomet, a goat-headed, winged being, on the state Capitol grounds. The statue—which contains two children fawning over Baphomet—was unveiled in 2018.
"If you're going to have one religious monument up then it should be open to others," Satanic Arkansas co-founder Ivy Forrester
said at the time, "and if you don't agree with that then let's just not have any at all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why a Workshop on Antisemitism Is Accused of Being Antisemitic
In addition to a robust discussion of what antisemitism is, the curriculum also includes what antisemitism is not, distinguishing between antisemitism and criticism of, or opposition to, Israel or Zionism.
Mar 31, 2025
An education group makes plans to hold a workshop for its community on antisemitism from a framework of collective liberation; publicity goes out; and, before you know it, a right-wing organization (that has never actually seen the curriculum) is determined to get it cancelled. The firestorm is so intense that it’s hard to imagine that it’s about one workshop. The workshop in discussion is one we offer and facilitate at PARCEO, a resource and education center that works with a range of institutions to strengthen their work for justice. The scenario is one we have encountered on multiple occasions.
The accusations hurled at the workshop, its organizers, and those endorsing it: “I knew it would be antisemitic once I saw the word ‘collective.’” “The facilitators are pro-Palestine.” “The organization believes that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic.” “They are antisemites.” “They are antisemites.” “They are antisemites.”
To reiterate: The workshop being offered is on antisemitism! The topics cover what antisemitism is—historically and currently—and how it manifests in the U.S. today. Sections are included on Christian hegemony; on white nationalist antisemitism; on tropes and stereotypes; on conspiracy theories; on philosemitism. The voices of Jewish historians, educators, and scholars, along with many others, are integrated throughout the curriculum.
So what is actually going on? What, in fact, are the reasons there is so much venom and energy devoted to making sure these workshops don’t happen? Four interconnected reasons seem to be at play.
The first reason: In addition to a robust discussion of what antisemitism is, the curriculum also includes what antisemitism is not, distinguishing between antisemitism and criticism of, or opposition to, Israel or Zionism. Those wanting to shut down the curriculum reject any such distinction.
The workshop is attacked because it focuses on challenging antisemitism from a “collective liberation” framework. It seems just the name of the workshop is threatening.
This section of the workshop illustrates the ways that false charges of antisemitism are wielded to penalize and silence those standing with the Palestinian movement for justice. One example of how this plays out is through the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism—in which 7 of its 11 examples of antisemitism are about criticism of Israel, not antisemitism. The IHRA definition is the gold standard of antisemitism definitions for these detractors.
Author Antony Lerman, in “Whatever Happened to Antisemitism,” couldn’t be clearer about the danger of these false definitions: “By falsely conflating anti-Zionism—a form of legitimate political discourse and belief—and antisemitism—a form of ethno-racial hostility and hatred—and calling it “new antisemitism” and codifying it in the form of the “IHRA working definition of antisemitism, antisemitism has been redefined to be what it is not.” He adds: “The conflation is false because, first, the root concept of ‘new antisemitism,’ that Israel is the ‘collective Jews’ among the nations, is a myth—a state cannot have the attributes of a human being. Second, it is a heretical corruption of Judaism because it entails an idolatrous deification and workshop of the state…”
The workshop points to other ways these false conflations are employed to further a particular agenda. For example, the Heritage Foundation’s Project Esther, a recently released right wing national strategy document, lays out a plan to supposedly combat antisemitism in the US. But by characterizing critics of Israel as “a global Hamas Support Network,” it’s clear its real aim is to destroy the Palestinian movement for justice and restrict activism against US policy more broadly.
Another example highlighted in the workshop is how, under the guise of fighting antisemitism, specifically on college campuses, Zionist groups (like those trying to get the workshop cancelled) are using Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to suppress pro-Palestine advocacy. Just a bit of background: Title VI, which prohibits discrimination in educational institutions, authorizes the Department of Education to investigate charges of antisemitism. That authority was expanded in 2019 when President Trump issued Executive Order 13899 directing that the DOE, in protecting against antisemitism, "consider" the IHRA definition. As a result, DOE investigations of antisemitism now include not only the classic examples of anti-Jewish bigotry, but anti-Israel protest as well. And President Trump ramped this up even more with his recent Executive Order, “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” that directs all agencies charged with enforcing Title VI to report to him within 60 days about what they are doing to address antisemitism. As if to underline his concern with protest that is critical of Israel, the Order refers specifically to complaints of antisemitism following “October 7, 2023.” So, again, we can see the ways that criticism of Israel and actual antisemitism become indistinguishable.
The second “problem” of the curriculum, for those opposing it, is that it rejects the essentialist view of antisemitism that is so central to many mainstream and right-wing Jewish organizations. This perspective understands antisemitism as eternal and never-ending. According to the eternalist perspective, antisemitism can’t be stopped and Jews are always under threat–it is “us” versus “them.”
A different perspective—which is the one adhered to in the workshops—understands antisemitism as historically contextual, emerging in different historical periods for different reasons and in relation to other forms of oppression. In other words, when understanding antisemitism and Jewish experience, context is critical.
These different understandings impact whether we see—and respond to—antisemitism in isolation (eternalist view) or, rather, in relationship to the societies and to other struggles against oppression. As Professor Barry Trachtenberg points out, “If one accepts antisemitism to be eternal, and not a consequence of social or historical factors, then it is a fact of life that will forever push Jewish people into defensive postures. It will make us more nationalist, more reactionary, more militaristic, and more closed off from the rest of the world.” We see this perspective in living color today as a number of Zionist organizations have unequivocally supported Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people, (wildly!) positioning Israel as a victim and lamenting that nobody cares about the Jews (“us” versus “them”).
Next, the workshop is attacked because it focuses on challenging antisemitism from a “collective liberation” framework. It seems just the name of the workshop is threatening.
Challenging antisemitism necessitates a commitment to challenging all forms of racism and injustice.
The workshop’s emphasis on collective liberation reflects a deep commitment to the ways our different communities can act in solidarity with one another, as so many are. As we think more deeply about solidarities and what that tangibly looks like, we know that such injustices as Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, anti-Palestinian racism, and antisemitism must not be viewed as oppositional or isolated struggles, but, rather, the success in challenging each of these injustices requires a vision that is holistic and interconnected.
Those opposing the workshop believe that a collective liberation framework minimizes, even makes a mockery of, antisemitism. This perspective is rooted in the belief that antisemitism is exceptional, that is, it is separate from, and unrelated to, other struggles for justice. In fact, the concept of “collective liberation,” in their view, is yet another example of antisemitism.
We challenge this exceptionalism in our workshop with an excerpt from Professor Alana Lentin: “As I write in Why Race Still Matters (2020), the elevation of antisemitism as the racism above all racisms, and the contention that any discussion of the Shoah alongside other genocides renders it banal, constrains solidarity between Jews and other racialised people, thwarting a fuller understanding of race as a colonial mechanism and a technology of power for the maintenance of white supremacy.”
A framework rooted in collective liberation is essential in the fight against antisemitism and all forms of racism. After the shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue, Rabbi Brant Rosen, reflecting on the sacred power of solidarities, said “Yes, among the many important takeaways from this terrible, tragic moment is the simple truth that we must never underestimate the sacred power of solidarity. Moments such as these must remind all targeted minorities that we are always stronger when we resist together.”
The amount of effort spent trying to get a simple workshop cancelled would just seem absurd if it weren’t so destructive and didn’t reflect a much deeper commitment by those opposing it to defend Israel's genocide, to attack anyone who speaks out as an antisemite, and to insure that those voices are not heard.
Finally, those trying to shut down the workshop are outraged that it is being facilitated by individuals who support justice for the Palestinian people. In the view of the workshop’s detractors, those facilitating the workshop (who, in fact, support Palestinian justice) are thereby automatically excluded from any authority to teach about antisemitism (and, even worse, proves that they are antisemites). What they are in fact saying is that if you care about anti-Palestinian racism, then you can’t care about antisemitism.
We turn that view on its head and say clearly that challenging antisemitism necessitates a commitment to challenging all forms of racism and injustice. And we know that solidarity, as articulated by community leader Sister Aisha Al Adawiya means: “Standing up for each other in a real authentic way. No cameras rolling. Just the human spirit calling on us to say, ‘This is not right and I have to say something’.”
The amount of effort spent trying to get a simple workshop cancelled would just seem absurd if it weren’t so destructive and didn’t reflect a much deeper commitment by those opposing it to defend Israel's genocide, to attack anyone who speaks out as an antisemite, and to insure that those voices are not heard. We know the attempts to silence and penalize those protesting across the country have tremendous repercussions; students, faculty, and other activists are being doxxed and punished, losing their jobs, being denied financial packages, and, more recently, facing threats of deportation—and all in the name of fighting antisemitism.
But the voices demanding justice will continue to reverberate and strengthen day by day despite these desperate attempts to shut them down.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular