The Return of Religion & School Prayer?
June 6, 2024
Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer
Guest: David New
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program originally aired on June 6, 2024. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.
Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning this dialogue.
Sam Rohrer: Hello and welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand In the Gap Today, and it’s also our bimonthly emphasis on the Constitution, American history and current events. Today as normal constitutional attorney historian and author David New is with me as today we’ve chosen a 2023, so it’s just a year ago, but it’s a 2023, I’m calling it private charter school initiative filed by a religious school in Oklahoma and it was subsequently approved by the Controlling State Oversight Board for charter schools there, but the Oklahoma Attorney General then filed a suit to oppose it and to remove that approval. Now this charter school initiative and the predictable opposition by such groups as the A CLU and others has set up a judicial test case more or less that may involve the matters of prayer and religious instruction itself in public schools. By the nature of what this is, and we’re going to explain that here today, the reason that this is notable is that this Oklahoma initiative, as I’m referring to, is being described at least by the opponents.
Sam Rohrer: In their words, they say the nation’s first religious charter school. Now that’s important, the nation’s first religious charter school and it involves the use of taxpayer funds to subsidize what is designed to provide a very clearly overt religious school instruction. Now, while there are far too many legal and historical aspects of this case and the broader issue directly to comprehensively deal with today’s program, we did feel that it would be instructional to present the arguments for and against and to consider the question of whether prayer and religious instruction might just be making a comeback in our K to 12 school system as a result. So the title I’ve chosen for today’s program is this, the Return of Religion and School Prayer, the Return of Religion and School Prayer. Now in the course of today’s program, we’re going to share more details on this religious charter school in Oklahoma, who they are and their mission statement.
Sam Rohrer: We’ll identify the opposition groups, their arguments against it and between David and I we’re going to identify and share some personal considerations for and against taxpayer paid funding of religious schools. But when I first give the history, broadly speaking of such overtly religious practices such as prayer, bible, reading once in public schools, but long ago declared to be unconstitutional and whether or not this Oklahoma initiative may be the mechanism to reverse the current US Supreme Court ruling that made such religious instruction illegal in the public schools. Well all of this and more here today on the program and standing up today. And with that, David, welcome to the program.
David New: So nice to be with you. Blessings to everyone with us today.
Sam Rohrer: David, this is going to be a good program, a lot of information. Lemme get a bit of a background and go to you for just a brief consolidation, but many of our listeners who attended public schools in the 1960s, that’s when I did sixties, early seventies, but I remember bible verses being read by the principal over the loud speakers in the classrooms at the beginning of the school, we recited the pledge. Sometimes a prayer was heard in numerous classrooms through my K to 12 public education, which occurred in Ohio, a rural district even up until I graduated in 1973 from high school, some teachers had Bibles prominently displayed on their desks. Even my band director of our 120 member marching band had our entire band bow their heads. He asked me to lead them in reciting the Lord’s Prayer or I would pray independently for God’s protection and help before we boarded the buses for away games. And this continued right up until graduation until 1973. But David, here’s the point that was then, but we know that’s not the case now. So here it is. Give us a little bit of a background for what was once and what is not now and why.
David New: Absolutely. Before the 1940s, this is when 1940s is when the federal government took control of the Supreme Court, rather took control of religious freedom in the United States in a case called Cantwell versus Connecticut. That’s when the states began to be subject to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause In the First Amendment before 1940, the First Amendment did not appear in religion cases in any state court, which means that there were about 30 cases before 1940 and except for three states, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Louisiana, all of the state courts gave prayer and school and Bible reading in school a pass. And the case of Louisiana the only ruled against prayer. So rather the Bible prayer was allowed to continue in Louisiana after that 1910 case from Louisiana. And that’s the way things were.
David New: It does some claim that religious exercises in the public schools were beginning to decline. They were waning, but nevertheless it was still quite popular throughout the country. Well, that’s the way things were until 1940, the first time the First Amendment was used of the school prayer case occurred in 1950 and a case from Doremus. And in that case, the courts ruled in favor of prayer on the Bible. The trial judge Judge Davison quoted the Holy Trinity Church. About 42% of his decision is nothing but a quote from Holy Trinity Church where the Supreme Court in 1892 said, this is a Christian nation. Well, so from 1940 there were various cases going forward throughout the United States concerning the Bible and prayer. And then comes 1962. 1962 was a watershed year in American history. If you want to know when the culture wars started in the United States, 1962 is a good year to point to. This is where the Supreme Court in a case called Eng versus Vitale ruled against a 22 word prayer in the New York region, the New York Public Schools. Let me read this prayer to you. It takes just a half a second and it’s one of the most inoffensive prayers you’re ever going to hear. It goes like this, almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.
David New: That’s the 22 word prayer that began a culture war in this country, which we are still fighting,
Sam Rohrer: David. Perfect, great overview ladies and gentlemen. Stay with us When we come back, we’re going to move to and explain and give the details of this initiative now in Oklahoma, which is in part a pushback reaction to that case all the way back in 1962 frankly. Well if you’re just joining us today, we’re about to begin our second segment. This is a constitutional update focused program today. Constitutional attorney David New is with me. And our theme is this, the Return of Religion and School Prayer. At the end of that, the return of religion and school prayer, is it happening? That’s the question mark. Now getting into it here from this perspective, David just gave an overview and I described what it was like in the public school system in Ohio. I grew up in we heard prayers, there were Bibles on certain teachers desks and things were a lot different then than they were.
Sam Rohrer: And David gave a bit of review how we got to this point with basically a Supreme Court decision in 1962 primarily that really fundamentally altered any kind of religious or faith-based instruction that would be in our schools. But there’s more to it than that. And I want to give just a little bit of a background here because while government funded public school policies were still driven by state constitutions and state law that prevailed at one point up until that point in 1962 primarily. And when that happened, I’m going to say in a general sense, a Judeo-Christian framework with a basic Judeo-Christian worldview generally prevailed in our government school’s, public school instruction. And as such, placement of, well the 10 Commandments on school walls for instance, or publicly led prayer perhaps by the principal and down in his office before the school began, or quoting of Bible verses with emphasis on what we would consider today to be biblically based character trait, honesty and trustworthiness and so forth.
Sam Rohrer: That was basically pretty common for those of you listening to me right now who remember those days and if you’re younger, you never knew those days, but that was in our lifetime. But when the Supreme Court usurped state governance on behalf of the federal government and declared the, for instance, 10 Commandments Bible reading and that prayer that David gave from New York State to be illegal, well then folks, Christians generally were forced to respond. And with that then came the birth of the Christian school movement and greatly expanded homeschooling as you began beginning into the early seventies and later. Well, as the government schools became more secular and they did and a segment of the population Christian and private schools became more popular. Well there was transition period that developed there and with this transition, certain people began desiring access to more funding for their newer private and religious schools.
Sam Rohrer: And ultimately through that time into the eighties and into the nineties, there were creative ways put before state legislatures to access taxpayer funding through the creation of such things as vouchers and charter schools and more. I know that because I was a part of that here in Pennsylvania, but that was happening across the country. Now in Oklahoma, a religious denomination has filed on behalf of a charter school to provide very clear religious instruction with full taxpayer funding. Alright, hopefully that little bit of a history was helpful, but David, let’s go to you now. So alright, I’ve kept the name of what the school and so forth, a little bit hidden. Go ahead and unveil that right now about this Oklahoma Charter School initiative.
David New: Yes. On June 5th, 2023, the Oklahoma statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved an application from the St. Isador of Seville Catholic Virtual School to where they can operate. This is an online school. This is not a literal school in the sense that the brick and mortar and all that kind of thing, this is an online school only. And the reason why the Catholic church wanted that to do this is because there are many Catholic children in rural districts where they don’t have access to a Catholic school. And so this procedure allows them to have catechism and various religious activities going on. And it is being paid for by the taxpayer. 100%. It’s the very first one in the nation. I hope they succeed. I am definitely for school prayer and Bible reading in the public schools. It is entirely constitutional. The Supreme Court just was out of step with American history the moment they ruled against school prayer in 1962. So anyway, this is what it’s about. It is a Catholic school, an online Catholic school, and we have a new Supreme court and we have six members on that Supreme Court thanks to President Trump. Three of those people were appointed by him. These people look to be very religiously friendly to the freedom of religion, unlike some of the prior people. And so there are all kinds of possibilities that we’re hoping to see coming.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, David, that’s good. Now, I did not read this, I just didn’t have time to research it, but perhaps you did. There is obviously a controversy between this charter school who asked to be approved, the state government of Oklahoma panel that approved their application and the groups that are opposing that application. And we’ll talk about them in the next segment. But here was my question. I did not read anything relative to the approval panel reasons that they gave for approving this because I don’t know whether that entity actually anticipated a religious charter school application or not. I don’t know. But anything that you read that would be appropriate to kind of support their reasoning for approving them.
David New: They knew exactly what they were doing. They knew that they were approving at taxpayer expense, an online religious school, which will involve prayer and all various things that are really good for kids. And this will be a Catholic school and it will be online for those kids in rural areas in the state of Oklahoma who simply don’t have access to a Catholic school. And I think it’s really great. I hope this will lead to many more cases to keep pushing and keep testing, pushing the envelope to see if we cannot get angle versus Vitale reversed. That’s the goal.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, so David, so you’re saying that you think based on what you’ve read, that the Oklahoma State folks that approve this, you’re saying they absolutely knew that it would be pursued by a religious entity and they actually are wanting to perhaps challenge the existing Supreme Court ruling that what you’re saying?
David New: Yes sir. Absolutely correct.
Sam Rohrer: Okay. Well ladies and gentlemen, I’m just going to read one thing. I did go online for this particular school and this information was available. Again, David, I haven’t talked in super detail here, but I would agree with what you are saying, David, they had to have known because this information was clear. Now here’s just a part from their curriculum statement from the school, and I thought it would just give the flavor for it because they’re very clear, but they say relative to the purpose for their instruction for the students, we want our students to maximize their human potential and to both be good and do good in authentic freedom. These words are very carefully true. I think they’re pretty interesting. They go on to say, in order to do this, our students need to be able to know how to wisely and fully apprehend and interrogate all aspects of reality from a solid Christian intellectual tradition.
Sam Rohrer: This intellectual tradition involves not just teaching facts and skills, but is also essentially focused on seeking to know the value and nature of things and appreciating the value of knowledge for its own sake. Now, that was a quick read, but I think you could get the sense of it that you could say, well yeah, that’s great, that’s great. So they very clearly, they say Christian education and they offer a different approach for the purpose of providing education. So it was very clear. And so anyway, so that’s being the case. Now, you only have about a minute left before we go into break. There’s a suit filed against it. We’ll talk about that in the next segment. But what is the likelihood that this might make it to the Supreme Court?
David New: Well, it’s interesting when you read the pleadings that the opponents have written, none of it is based upon the First Amendment. They’re going solely on the Oklahoma Constitution, the state constitution, and the state rules. So it’s an interesting situation if Oklahoma, the state of Oklahoma loses, they can still appeal to the US Supreme Court even though the First Amendment does not appear. And of course it’s kind of good that it’s the state of Oklahoma doing it because they’ve got deep pockets. So if they lose the case, they can afford to pay the legal fees. So many times these radical groups can get things accomplished just by the threat of making a local community pay the legal fees. Now, I’m not a Catholic, but I think this is a great idea. I think that this is something that I keep hearing from my liberal friends. Diversity is our strength. Diversity is our strength. So why don’t we let some diversity in public education?
Sam Rohrer: Alright, ladies and gentlemen, stay with us. We’ll be back in just a moment and we’re going to go to now the opposition. We talked about those who were in favor, they were approved by the leaders of Oklahoma and the charter school is functioning, but they have opposition. We’ll talk about them and their arguments in the next segment when it comes to education of our children, in particular the means of education. The curriculum used in instruction of our children and the colleges established to train the teachers to teach our children. They were all strategically targeted by secular and Marxist strategists decades ago. Now what I just said there, you probably know, but let me just assure you, it is absolutely true. I’ve spent a lot of years in education in the legislature. What I said there is absolutely true. Now, the multi-pronged strategy, which I just kind of laid out, I’m going to say I think also included the appointment of US Supreme Court justices of the past who would rule unconstitutionally and in favor of a consolidated and more centralized federal government.
Sam Rohrer: And in the past programs, David New and I have talked about a number of those things that have occurred that have really transformed the role of not only the Supreme Court, but it moved power from the states and state legislatures and state courts to the federal level. Now, from this came unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions that David mentioned he cited most significantly was the one in 1962 that ruled that prayer, that very simple innocuous prayer from a school in New York ruled it unconstitutional. But there were decisions that were in the sixties and seventies in particular across a wide area of culture, I would say from the Supreme Court, including the one we’re talking about today that has bearing on the school with prayer, Bible reading and so forth. Now into this scenario came some of the arguments made by the proponents of secular anti-God policies and these all have surfaced in the predictably organized opposition to this 2023 Oklahoma Catholic Charter school approval, which is what we’re talking about here today. Alright, so David, with that set up, as I mentioned earlier in the first segment, the Oklahoma Attorney general walking against the approval of the charter school board, which is probably operating would be out of the education wing of the state of Oklahoma. He filed suit against the Catholic Charter School approval. Alright, so here’s the question to you. Can you share any of the Oklahoma Attorney General’s arguments for this suit? Why was he opposing it or is opposing it?
David New: Yes. Well, he was also joined by some of these other groups, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the A CLU and those lovely people at the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Madison, Wisconsin who specialize in being atheist. And their basic argument is something along these lines. First, they don’t like the fact that sodomy is not going to be included in the curriculum in this online school. They also don’t like the fact that child mutilation and gender problems aren’t going to be allowed in this school either. They also don’t like the fact that the school basically will be discriminating against people who are not Catholics. They won’t let them in, whatever. Now the problem with this argument is the GI bill allowed members of the military who no longer served in the military if they wanted to, they could go to a theological seminary that had requirements that would in effect discriminate and that they can go to these theological seminaries and use their GI bill for that purpose. That’s the legal reasoning in my opinion, that will help this group win the day. If you don’t allow these people to go forward, you’re basically discriminating against religion, you’re discriminating against religion. And a lot of these groups basically see the First Amendment as a tool to discriminate against religion and to teach American religious people as second class.
Sam Rohrer: Alright, what you just said there is the reason why the state of Oklahoma and the charter school, if they pursue that argument relative to the options given to veterans for use of public funds, you’re saying that will be a strong argument in your opinion?
David New: Yes, yes, it would open the door because if you don’t allow that, if you say to the veterans and the GI Bill, you can’t go to a theological seminar and use our money because they discriminate against churches or people who are not members of the church. If you do that, you are in fact discriminating. And so these groups, of course, they want sodomy in there, they want transgenderism in there. And this Catholic school, this online Catholic school, you can forget it, they’re not going to do that to those children. And so there’s all kinds of reasons why I think this is constitutional. Remember, the First Amendment has 45 words and the most important word in the First Amendment is the very first word Congress. Congress means that the First Amendment has no jurisdiction. The moment it limited to Congress, it has no jurisdiction over a state or an estate public school system. That is what the framers of the First Amendment wanted. They wanted the states to be left alone with respect to religion. The First Amendment only applies to Congress. What the Supreme Court did in 1940 is they reversed the framers of the First Amendment and said, no, no, no, it says Congress and no state. They added the states and that gave the Supreme Court the power to do the bad things that they have done.
Sam Rohrer: Alright, I think that makes sense. But that would be an appealable thing on the federal level. That’s the reason for the veterans. And so that may take a direction itself. If it does, that could be a good argument. But in this case with Oklahoma, they’re not using federal funds, they’re using state tax dollars and I don’t know what their constitution says, but here’s an argument I just want you to discuss a little bit here because there was a joint statement that was made by these groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, ACL U, the Education Law Center, the Freedom from Religion Foundation. They all jumped on board in support of the Attorney General’s opposition. But a part of their arguments and their document, they said that, I’m just going to read ’em and then you can comment. But they said this, the law is clear.
Sam Rohrer: I mean that would be disputable as well, but none, no, this is what they’re saying. The law is clear. Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students. That’s number one. Number two, this school talking about this Catholic school plans to discriminate against students, families and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion. And their third statement was allowing a religious public charter school like St. Isadore to operate would be a sea change for our democracy. A lot of code words in there. Alright, I dunno if you have those in front of you, but any one of those stand out to, you’d like to give a comment on here?
David New: Yes, I don’t agree. These people are very intolerant people. They’re very bigoted people. It’s amazing how upset adults get when a child is even thinking about praying in a public school. It is just unbelievable. This is all pure bigotry. This is all pure intolerance for religion. These people don’t like religion. The public schools are not meant to be secular. The concept of a secular state when the Constitution was written didn’t even exist. The concept of a secular state when the First Amendment was written in 1789 didn’t even exist. And so they’re arguing for something that didn’t exist when the Constitution was written, all of the signers of the Constitution, all of the people that voted for the First Amendment, every one of them were creationists. And what that means is that as creationists, they believed that every institution on this planet is subject to the sovereignty of God and that includes the government.
Sam Rohrer: I think that was well stated, David, and that is a significant thing. And ladies and gentlemen, when I talked in the last segment about there was a general prevailing attitude prior to the forties and things were beginning to change some, but there was a prevailing Judeo Christian worldview. It flavored our court decisions. It was reflected in both federal and state law. Mostly now things began to change, but the 10 Commandments as the basis for defining morality, the underpinning of our judicial law, what was acceptable publicly and not privately and publicly was the 10 Commandments. And that’s why it hung on the walls of our schools and that’s why it was in all of our courtrooms. And well when that was removed again, that transition, as I said, those targeting to remove a foundation of Judeo-Christian worldview is what began to happen. And these things we’re talking about here now is a part of it.
Sam Rohrer: So whether or not this application for charter school in Oklahoma can help to be the way to reverse it, we don’t know. But in any regard, it may. When we come back, David and I going to conclude with some personal thoughts about some larger considerations on this matter. Well, we’ve covered a big topic. I think probably something of interest to all who are listening because no matter where you may be age-wise, everything that we’ve talked about impacts us all. And we’ve probably related to it one way or another. But there are some other considerations that are of a broader policy perspective that I think needs to be addressed a little bit here as we wind up the program here today. And one of that is this, because while the final judicial determination regarding the ability for the state of Oklahoma to approve a clearly religious instruction in this case of this Catholic virtual charter school and funded by state collected and state distributed tax dollars might be years away.
Sam Rohrer: What I mean by that is that that is the heart of the challenge. Can you use public funds collected from the taxpayer by the state and directed to a school K to 12 school that actually provides overtly religious or what some states might call sectarian instruction. So that’s what’s there right now, that challenge is what David and I just talked about. Maybe it finds its way to the Supreme Court, maybe it doesn’t. But within that is where some of these legal things will have to be, I think decided. But within that, there is the legitimate consideration what would happen and should happen if it were to happen to get to the Supreme Court and they were to rule that such things as deciding whether to permit or require prayer or the 10 Commandments back on the walls or religious instruction in public schools. Since this charter school is a public school, it is, it’s a private public, more or less.
Sam Rohrer: If the Supreme Court were to hear this and they say, well, our decision back in 62 is wrong, we’re going to return it all to the states. If it all came back to the states with no consideration of Supreme Court what could or should happen. But here’s where there’s a little bit of a question. We’ll conclude the program here today. David, I want you to give your response first. Keep it short, I’ll give a short response and then there’s a couple of questions here. But here’s the first one. In a general sense, is it a good idea that Oklahoma is encouraging? You’ve already kind of answered it, but build it out again that Oklahoma is encouraging the directing of taxpayer funds to an overtly religious school. Upside of that downside of that.
David New: Well, the upside of that is that the public education in Oklahoma will dramatically improve. So I support that. By the way, for our listeners who are in the great state of Louisiana, God bless you, your Senate just voted 30 to eight to have the 10 commandments posted in K through 12 in the universities. And hopefully that case will go before the Supreme Court and reverse stone v Graham, the 1980 case which removed the 10 commandments. So God bless you, support your legislature, support your governor.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, what’s the downside?
David New: Well, I think when it comes to tax money, you do need to be careful. The downside is it can’t be limited to Catholic schools. If you’re going to allow Catholic schools, online, Catholic schools to use taxpayer money for this purpose, you’ve got to allow all the other religions as well. You cannot discriminate in favor of one versus the other.
Sam Rohrer: Alright, now David, here’s my response quickly. When I was in the Pennsylvania legislature, we had this debate before us and I would say generally, as a matter of principle, using public tax dollars to overtly fund religious school is not a good idea. Even though there may be what I’ll term a short term upside and you identified it, the upside would be religious and moral instruction by schools. Many of them could be greatly speeded up, greatly enhanced with less students going to the public schools, which right now only provide secular instruction. So the quality of education could absolutely well improve. That would be the upside. So I agree with you on that, Dave. Now here’s the downside, similar to what you’re talking about, the downside, I have two reasons. Number one, in many states like Pennsylvania, ladies and gentlemen, it is actually prohibited by the constitution no matter what the legislature or a court would rule.
Sam Rohrer: For instance, here in Pennsylvania, our constitution says this, no money raised for the support of the public schools of the commonwealth shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school. So the constitution clearly says you can’t raise money that has a goal of education and send it to a clearly sectarian, you could say a religious school. So that is an issue. Alright, then here’s the second one, I think David, and that is this. I have found that this is true right across the board, whatever the government funds, the government will end up controlling. When I was in legislature, I posed strenuously the concept of vouchers or other public monies going to recipient Christian schools or private schools or any religious schools because they would ultimately be controlled in that is given fact. That’s just the way it is. But the other thing then is this, well, let’s just back up here. Let’s go to the next question, Dave, we just take about a minute here for the answer. If the Supreme Court were to reverse its decision, usurping state controlled public education, should people seek to put prayer in religious instruction back into the public schools? In other words, is that what we need? Will it make a difference upside, downside?
David New: Well, there is no question if the Supreme Court reverses Engle versus Vitale in 1962 and Abington versus Shemp, then it’ll go back to the states, which is where it belongs according to the 10th Amendment, who put prayer in the Bible, in the public schools on a nationwide basis? Who did it? It wasn’t the Christian Church, it was the United States federal government. They did it. The law that was used to put religion in the public schools throughout the United States, all the federal territories, all of ’em that wanted it was the Northwest ordinance that is a federal law and that law was used to put religion all over this country. So we’re not fighting the feds, we’re supporting an existing federal policy by the Congress That said, religion has a role in public education. I support vouchers. I know we part there and I understand where you’re at, but if we keep going the way we are now we’re going to lose another generation of kids. These kids are being messed up so bad they’re now shooting each other in the public schools because these people who teach them are really scurrying them up.
Sam Rohrer: Absolutely. And David, I’m going to have to cut you short about out of time and ladies and gentlemen, we offer this back and forth so that you know, good people can disagree. And I had to go through this when I was in the legislature, but these are the kinds of things I wanted to bring forward today because you could be on one side or the other there. Oftentimes I will tell you, there can be short-term gains, but long-term pains. But we have a problem at the end of the day. We have a heart problem where we’ve thrown God out of our culture and with it prayer and the 10 commandments and truth and people have become their own truth. That is the heart of the problem. It’s a spiritual issue which can only be dealt with spiritually, and that’s by people returning to God. I’ll leave it there. Thank you for being with us today. David New thanks for being on the program today. Very applicable program and focus. Thank you ladies and gentlemen for being with us. God bless you. We’ll see you back here tomorrow.
Recent Comments