Two significant, and not unrelated, news stories broke in June. Pat Robertson, a religious and cultural juggernaut for the past five decades, died at 93. And a state charter school board in Oklahoma approved the nation\u2019s first religious charter school.<\/p>\n
Taking the Oklahoma story first, consider these two facts.<\/p>\n
In short, the Oklahoma board has approved a state-funded institution, educating children on behalf of the state, which will also be instructing students in the Catholic faith. Take a moment to let that idea settle in.<\/p>\n
Of course, the board\u2019s decision isn\u2019t the final word; there\u2019s likely to be years of litigation ahead over whether this novel creation\u2014a religious charter school\u2014is constitutionally permissible.<\/p>\n
Is it? There are, broadly, three possible answers.<\/p>\n
First, you could argue that any and all state funding for religious schools\u2014even indirect funding via state school vouchers programs\u2014is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, you\u2019d be wrong, at least according to current constitutional jurisprudence. Last term, the Supreme Court tied a bow on its years-long work of removing constitutional barriers to religious schools participating in state school voucher programs. In Carson v. Makin<\/i> the Court held not only that a state can<\/i> include religious schools in school voucher programs on the same footing as secular schools, but that it must<\/i>.<\/p>\n
The second stance you could take is that state vouchers for religious schools are fine, but that establishing a state-funded religious charter school is not. You could argue, \u201cWait a moment! Voucher money is sent to parents<\/i>, not religious schools. If state money ends up in the coffers of religious schools, it\u2019s through the decision of parents\u2014not the state. But state funds going directly\u2014no middleperson involved\u2014to set up an institution that delivers religious instruction in a particular faith? That\u2019s precisely what our nation\u2019s founders sought to avoid through the First Amendment\u2019s establishment clause!\u201d<\/p>\n
Third, you could argue that approval of a state-funded religious charter school is simply a logical next step past where the Supreme Court has already led us. If it\u2019s constitutionally forbidden to discriminate on the basis of religion when setting up a state school voucher program, then shouldn\u2019t that also apply to criteria used for approving state charter schools?<\/p>\n
Where the courts\u2014and ultimately the Supreme Court\u2014will land is anyone\u2019s guess. Predictions are pointless given the Court\u2019s still-evolving, infinitely flexible \u201ctext, history, and tradition\u201d approach to weighing these questions.<\/p>\n
The phrase \u201cslippery slope\u201d gets used a lot, but in the case of state school voucher programs it seems apt. Those comfortable with state vouchers for religious schools\u2014but uncomfortable with a directly state-funded religious charter school\u2014may find that it\u2019s not so easy to start applying the brakes now. It may be too late to draw a bright-red constitutional line underneath school voucher programs and say, \u201cThat\u2019s far enough\u2014no further.\u201d<\/p>\n
What has any of this to do with Pat Robertson and his legacy? Only this: The America that Robertson yearned for and spent his life working toward is an America in which a fully state-funded religious charter school is not an outlandish idea.<\/p>\n
There have been reams written about Robertson since he died on June 8. There\u2019s little disagreement about the extent of his influence in shaping today\u2019s political and evangelical Christian landscape. For years Robertson deftly blended national identity with Christian identity through his media empire, his political endeavors, and his law school at Regent University. For many American Christians, faith has become a part of their politics and politics a part of their faith.<\/p>\n
For Robertson, the American republic\u2014the great American experiment\u2014was not so much a political venture as a Christian one. In a now-infamous 1986 interview with New York Magazine<\/i>, Robertson called non-Christians in positions of power \u201ctermites\u201d who destroy \u201cinstitutions that have been built by Christians.\u201d He added, \u201cThe time has arrived for a godly fumigation.\u201d<\/p>\n
As a presidential candidate in the 1990s, Robertson unapologetically declared he would \u201cbring only Christians and Jews into the government.\u201d He wrote later in his book The New World Order<\/i>, \u201cI hit a firestorm. What do you mean?<\/i> the media challenged me. You\u2019re not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?<\/i> My simple answer is Yes, they are<\/i>.\u201d <\/p>\n
Attorney Jay Sekulow recently eulogized Robertson\u2019s commitment to religious liberty. Sekulow heads an organization Robertson also founded, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which defends the religious liberty rights of Christians. In reflecting on Robertson\u2019s contributions, Sekulow said Robertson\u2019s vision for religious liberty was \u201cso big it can only happen with God.\u201d<\/p>\n
For a big vision, it had a remarkably narrow focus. For Robertson, fighting for religious liberty translated into three decades of high-profile court cases focused on the interests of his brand of Christianity.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not surprising, then, that Robertson\u2019s legacy also includes an important role in redefining America\u2019s popular understanding of \u201creligious liberty.\u201d For many today, religious liberty has become code for Christian privilege. It\u2019s a definition that some on the right embrace as a simple truth\u2014a reflection of what a \u201cChristian America\u201d should look like. And it\u2019s a definition that\u2019s used by others, on the left, as a sweeping indictment of Christianity; a reason to discredit any<\/i> religious freedom claim made by a Christian.<\/p>\n
But there\u2019s an alternate definition of religious liberty. It\u2019s one that\u2019s often lost amid the noise of conflict.<\/p>\n
More than 230 years ago America\u2019s founders made what was then an unprecedented decision to \u201cdisestablish\u201d religion. Over time, American churches were freed from the state control that inevitably accompanies state favor and funding. Religion was given a space in society to operate with a level of autonomy almost unknown in history. We have the disestablishment of religion to thank for allowing the incredible renaissance of faith and religious expression in America that soon followed\u2014the so-called Second Great Awakening of the early nineteenth century.<\/p>\n
Today disestablishment is why America is still a shining example of a society in which people of vastly different faiths can flourish together. A society in which religious liberty is a right held equally<\/i> by everyone by virtue of their humanity, whether they\u2019re Hindu, Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, or any religious or nonreligious variant in between.<\/p>\n
So is Oklahoma\u2019s decision to create a state-funded Christian school a win for religious liberty, as many believe? First, define what you mean by \u201creligious liberty.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Two significant, and not unrelated, news stories broke in June. Pat Robertson, a religious and cultural juggernaut for the past five decades, died at 93. And a state charter school board in Oklahoma approved the nation\u2019s first religious charter school. Taking the Oklahoma story first, consider these two facts. Under Oklahoma law, all charter schools<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[354],"tags":[186],"class_list":["post-6669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-july-august-2023","tag-july-august-2023"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6669","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6669"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6669\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}