285 Comments
User's avatar
Joe King's avatar

The indoctrination level required to believe that neutrality = atheism is staggering. They are so locked into their absurd binary belief that they think that one is either actively promoting religion or actively promoting atheism, with no room for any nuance.

Expand full comment
Troublesh00ter's avatar

Maybe I'm picking nits here, but neutrality should really equal SECULARISM, because there is a difference.

A difference people like Stitt and Walters will never allow themselves to see.

Expand full comment
Maltnothops's avatar

I maintain that the vast majority of secularists in the US are religious people. Mostly Christians. I’ve never met a Baptist who thought our government should be guided by Catholic doctrine. Nor vice versa.

Expand full comment
painedumonde's avatar

Insert gif of Leonardo DiCaprio pointing...

Expand full comment
phelpsmediation's avatar

There are too many Baptists that want a Theocracy under their sects dogma.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

The southern sex abuse church for one.

Expand full comment
Maltnothops's avatar

There are too many different Baptist sects for that to be a concern.

Expand full comment
Bagat's avatar

And too many kkkatliks who hate babtists. Stocking up on popcorn.

Expand full comment
Stephen Brady's avatar

In fascist societies if you aren't an active supporter of the State and rightspeak, you are one of 'those people' and have no rights whatsoever.

Expand full comment
PollyProletariat's avatar

If acknowledging atheism is a form of indoctrination in itself, then blame nature. As a child I saw the sky and its absence of answers, and that's what I chose to live with, and still do. Agnostic atheism is the default human state until one is indoctrinated.

Expand full comment
Kelly Bloomingdale's avatar

First, neutrality has nothing to do with atheism. Here…it’s about independence and the constitution.

Expand full comment
Joan's avatar

Whatever happened to “separation of church and state”? I wonder how would they’d like it if this were a Jewish school?

Expand full comment
Joe King's avatar

After they get total government funding for as many Christian schools as they want, they will allow one (and only one) Jewish school. That way they can make the claim "we're not 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 Nazis, the Nazis wouldn't have allowed a Jewish school". Any other religions are out of luck.

Expand full comment
S. Arch's avatar

Conservative Republicans and SCOTUS are in the process of abolishing separation of church and state. They've been working towards this for 40 years or more. And now they are finally able to accomplish it.

Expand full comment
Doosh Dooshenberg's avatar

Check Traditional African Religions post on Wikipedia. Ran out of fingers and toes to count, but they are just as deserving as St. Izzy.

Expand full comment
Stephen Brady's avatar

Religion seems to have its icky little fingers in just about every part of society right now. Once the rethugs enact a nationwide abortion ban and an end to contraception, coupled with state-sponsored religious schools, Gilead will have arrived.

Expand full comment
PollyProletariat's avatar

LGBT+ are the firewall against Gilead, which is why they want rid of LGBT+. Who would have thought that 'feminists' would pave the way?

Expand full comment
Stephen Brady's avatar

I know - the whole thing boils down to the white patriarchal men who are willing to destroy the whole world rather than give up one iota of their power and privilege. They can’t stand the thought that people whom they despise are going about their lives unmolested. That poor kids might get a couple of hot meals a day at school. That women can’t ‘man up’ and accept the risks of pregnancy and… maybe just have to die. They may get their wish.

Expand full comment
PollyProletariat's avatar

We're at end stage capitalism and the ruling class wants to stay on top. So they have created two futures for us: digital slavery (see Gaza rebuilding as a prototype smart city and digital ID, which Trump is tasked with selling to the public, including cashless society) or The Handmaid's Tale. They would prefer the former as it's more stable.

In the meantime divide and rule is always useful. They need to keep us fighting to prevent us from seeing our class commonality.

Expand full comment
phelpsmediation's avatar

What is so scary is that I don’t think any other SCOTUS would have taken this case up since the Oklahoma Supreme Court clearly got it right!!! Paying for a Catholic school is obviously what the Founders were against when they wrote and passed the 1st Amendment. Now we will see how “originalist” they aren’t. This is one time we should flood Roberts with letters asking him to support the Founders intent and maintain true religious freedom, not creeping theocracy.

Expand full comment
NOGODZ20's avatar

Churches take in billions of tax-free dollars every year. They can't cry poverty. Let 'em pay their own way.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Fuck, yes!

Expand full comment
Marianne Cromarty's avatar

Why the fuck is it even a question for the supreme courts?! The answer should be FUCKING HELL NO!

Expand full comment
Bagat's avatar

Or, NO FUCKING WAY, KKKRISTERS!!!

Expand full comment
Joe King's avatar

We know how Alito, Thomas, Fratboy, and Usurper will vote. Hopefully, Roberts will remember that church-state separation is a thing.

Expand full comment
Cateck's avatar

Don't hold your breath, he voted with the rest of them on the Kennedy v Bremerton.

Expand full comment
Matri's avatar

Sadly, their “amnesia” is Republican-mandated.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

He claims he doesn't want to be Taney, but he's nearly there.

Expand full comment
Val Uptuous NotAgain's avatar

“But SCOTUS took it up anyway. (Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case without explaining why, though the New York Times notes that she’s “close friends with a Notre Dame law professor who has helped advise the St. Isidore team.”)”

Wwwhhhhhhaaaaaaaa?

Ofdonald did the right thing? Color me shocked!

This school isn't adding to school options it’s taking money away from the public school system, limiting school options. The school cannot take children with special needs, it will not take students they arbitrarily dislike, this is not a public school since it is not accessible to the public. Let’s hope Barrett’s absence helps reality for once.

Expand full comment
oraxx's avatar

This is part of the religious right's never-ending quest to get government to backstop their religion. In other words, do what the churches have failed to accomplish in spite of having had every opportunity to do. If Christianity equaled morality then the dark red Bible-belt states wouldn't have some of the worst social metrics in the country. A thing is not rendered moral by slapping the word Christian on it.

Expand full comment
Bagat's avatar

Slavery, genocide, mass murder, filicide and misogyny arr not moral? OH!!! I clutch my pearls as I swoon. /s

Expand full comment
Stan Adermann's avatar

If excluding a religious organization from public aid amounts to discrimination, then excluding a religious organization from taxation must also be discrimination.

Expand full comment
Daniel Rotter's avatar

Journalists should ask Stitt and Walters if they would support a MUSLIM charter school in Oklahoma.

Expand full comment
Troublesh00ter's avatar

𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑓 𝑡𝑎𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙

Okay ... how about 𝗔𝗕𝗦𝗢-𝗙𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚-𝗟𝗨𝗧𝗘𝗟𝗬 𝗡𝗢𝗧!!! Do I have to say it again? What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." don't they get? Yeah, yeah, I know, this is entirely about erasing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and if those dupes at SCOTUS can't be bothered to see the danger of such action, then this nation is in some deep shit.

Which we already knew. I just hope that those arguing against the funding before the Court are bringing their A game, because if SCOTUS rules in favor of funding, the US just took a monstrous step backward.

Expand full comment
Len's avatar
Jan 26Edited

I'm afraid they're actually in favour of that danger - which they believe will be a benefit (until they end up being the wrong flavour of christian).

Expand full comment
Whitney's avatar

Funny how these schools teaching Catholic doctrine never seem to get enough money from the Vatican.

Quite apart from the church/state separation issues present, I'm still not convinced it's ever a good idea to allow a group with demonstrable pedophilia problems anywhere near kids. Sure, I realize that most Catholics are likely completely fine, but the way the RCC has handled this issue should, by any reasonable measure, disqualify them from anything that would provide regular unsupervised access to minors. I see zero reason to even allow this school to open, giving it government money isn't even an option in my mind since they'll need additional oversight if allowed to run at all.

To my thinking, any group that wants government money must first ensure it's not costing extra funds for enforcement or oversight issues. Consistent criminal behavior of its local leadership and insistence on covering said behavior up is costing local communities in ways the Vatican apparently has no intention of even attempting to make restitution for. Nope, no new school for any such organization and certainly no government funding for them to run it with!

Expand full comment
Maltnothops's avatar

If there’s a way to molest kids virtually, the RCC will figure it out.

Expand full comment
NOGODZ20's avatar

Hey, churches...

Want to get government $$$? Easy. Pay your taxes. No more free rides while you use those government dollars to discriminate. Pay to play like everyone else.

Expand full comment
Daniel Rotter's avatar

Churches even want to be able to keep their tax-exempt status while endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. Pathetic.

Expand full comment
NOGODZ20's avatar

This is what happens when the powers-that-be refuse to enforce the Johnson Amendment.

Expand full comment
Bagat's avatar

jeezus hates us,

this we know,

cuz its minions

scream it's so.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Oh they do, they use their money to fund laws against sane things like abortion. Some Kansas bishop donated millions, to the people trying to overturn abortion in Kansas, which failed, thankfully.

Expand full comment
Joan the Dork's avatar

Oh goodie, I was 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 wondering how SCROTUS was going to inch us further towards theocracy next!

Expand full comment
Jarred Harris's avatar

"But then came the expected appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the school’s backers argued that denying them this funding amounted to religious discrimination"

Unfortunately, given the tendency of conservative justices who currently dominate the Supreme Court to salivate over pushing Christian Nationalism in the name of "religious liberties," I'm worried they'll jump at the chance to affirm this argument no matter the facts of the case.

Expand full comment
S. Arch's avatar

Indeed, they will. They have previously signaled that they want to get their hands on as many separation of church and state cases as possible. They have a clear agenda. They want to increase Christian privilege, enable Christian indoctrination in schools, and create a truly "Christian nation."

Expand full comment