On October 20, 2023, Gentner Drummond, the Attorney General of Oklahoma, filed a petition with the state supreme court asking it to issue a declaratory judgment against the state’s sponsorship of the St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School. He argues the sponsorship violates both the U.S. Constitution (specifically the Establishment Clause) and the state constitution (specifically article II, which says “no public money…shall ever be appropriated…or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion…or sectarian institution”).
In a press release for the filing Drummond unfortunately plays to Oklahoma’s long-established anti-Muslim sentiments in warning against state support for “radical Muslim teachings like Sharia law;” Brett Farley, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, rightly decries such “attempts to pit people of faith against each other” (although, as we shall see, he was hypocritical in doing so). Drummond nonetheless goes on to make an important point about the charter school that deserves consideration, “There is no religious freedom in compelling Oklahomans to fund religions that may violate their own deeply held beliefs.” As the AG’s press release says,
(Oklahoma’s existing) constitutional protections ensure religious liberty, preventing a scenario in which Muslim Oklahomans would be forced to fund Christian and Jewish schools, Jewish Oklahomans would be forced to fund Christian and Muslim schools, and Oklahomans of no faith would be forced to fund religious schools for all faiths.
This raises the question: is the Oklahoma Catholic virtual charter school truly a pursuit of, in Farley’s words, “religious freedom for all,” or is this claim merely a charade to conceal an attack upon the religious freedom of the majority to benefit a select few?
In an earlier article I examined the Catholic philosophy of integralism which forms the ideological basis for establishing such institutions as the publicly-funded virtual charter school. Integralism, in the words of Micah Schwartzman and Jocelyn Wilson, is “a social system in which church and state are so well integrated that it no longer makes sense to distinguish between them;” the diversity and pluralism of modern American society is ultimately to be replaced by strict conformity to a religious-social system of government fully subordinate to the Catholic Church. Richard W. Garnett, law professor and director of Notre Dame Law School’s Program on Church, State & Society (and whose work is highly influential in the Oklahoma charter school movement), underscores the linkage of integralism to the public funding of Catholic schools when he argues on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website, “Since religious practice is a crucial dimension of human flourishing, a well-ordered state does not merely allow for religion; it positively seeks to foster the conditions in which religious practice can thrive.” A well-ordered state will thus do more than simply permit the relatively unrestricted existence of religious groups (and therefore religious schools); instead, Garnett argues, “A full account of religious freedom in education…goes beyond merely being legally permitted to attend a religious school. ‘Freedom for’ religion takes into account not only the mere legal permissibility of attending a religious school, but also the considerations which make such attendance practically possible.”
Pay attention to the argument being made by Garnett (and therefore, by extension, the Catholic bishops and other leaders in Oklahoma): an integralist agenda is not simply a promotion of militant Catholicism, but instead is a promotion of “freedom for” religion in general. But, given the ideology’s opposition to diversity and pluralism, what might an integralist understanding of freedom for religion really mean? In the earlier article I point out that a notable text in the integralist movement is Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy, in which Thomas Crean, O.P. and Alan Fimister (theology professor at a major American Catholic seminary) emphatically describe an integralist approach to other religions (the summary is from a critical review by Timothy Troutner):
Crean and Fimister openly state that Jews, atheists, and all non-Catholics will be denied citizenship and voting rights. They will be forbidden to proselytize, while polytheistic religions will be banned (along with, the manual insinuates, Islam). Protestant ministers will not be tolerated, and heretics can be put to death.
Freedom for the Catholic Church to rule over society is not freedom for religion. Freedom for non-Catholic groups and individuals to be fully disenfranchised—and possibly burned at the stake—is not the understanding any sane or honest person holds of the First Amendment. And a school established to “educate” students to support such a system is ethically and morally reprehensible.
To be fair, as far as I know neither Richard Garnett, Archbishop Coakley of Oklahoma City, Bishop Konderla of Tulsa, nor Brett Farley have expressed a desire to kick Jewish children to the curb of society (although it’s possible they might engage in a little Snidely Whiplash-style mustache twirling at the thought of lighting me up). At the same time, neither have they disassociated their educational agenda from its integralist philosophical underpinnings; and, since Garnett teaches at Notre Dame and publishes on the bishops’ website, integralism has obviously become part of mainstream Catholicism (or at least Catholic institutions). Thus, while the Oklahoma Catholic leaders may not necessarily intend to drive us into a North American version of the Papal States, we nonetheless must ask again: what is the religious virtual charter school movement’s approach to other religions? What does “religious freedom for all” really mean to them?
The answer appears to be: religious institutions have the freedom to accrue as much governmental power and money as they have the muscle to grab, while individual religious (and non-religious) people have the freedom to be exploited.
The Catholic virtual charter school movement is almost entirely institution-driven, using the resources and status of the Catholic Church to gain governmental support and public funds. State Superintendent Ryan Walters (a Protestant Christian nationalist), in addition to his support for the Catholic virtual charter school, has also disproportionately directed federal grant money to five private schools—three of them Christian, and one of those Catholic—at the expense of hundreds of eligible families who received none of the funds. Another way of expressing this understanding of “religious freedom” is “might equals right:” religious groups have the freedom to engage in a public cash grab, while the poor individuals—“those families and children most in need,” as Farley puts it while clutching his pearls—have the freedom to be run over.
This leads us back to Attorney General Drummond’s statement about there being “no religious freedom in compelling Oklahomans to fund religions that may violate their own deeply held beliefs.” There is yet another problem with the publicly-funded religious school movement’s understanding of freedom for religion: individuals will have no choice regarding whether their tax dollars support religious groups to which they are vehemently opposed. I’ve described above the exceedingly hostile perspective of integralist Catholics regarding all other religions; many fundamentalist Protestants will be similarly opposed to funding Catholic religious instruction. Still more, most non-religious persons—as well as such largely isolationist religious groups as Jehovah’s Witnesses—will be deeply opposed to publicly funding any religious instruction. Do these groups and individuals have the religious freedom to, in Ryan Walters’ words, “hold their faith and their liberty sacred” and refrain from supporting religious instruction that contradicts their beliefs and violates their consciences? Is there a “religious freedom” tax exemption allowing them to direct their tax dollars away from funding religious schools?
The answer, in a word, is “NOPE.” The claim of “religious freedom for all” is a lie: it is a deliberate deception, a platitude meant to placate us as some religious leaders—in this case Catholic, but soon enough other Christians and then perhaps other religions—pin us down and pick our pockets. There is “freedom”—which, as they understand it, means power and money—only for those with the clout to pull off the heist.
Supporters of using public funds for religious schools will undoubtedly argue that my point is irrelevant, because everyone pays taxes which are used at least in part to support agencies and services with which they disagree. This is true, of course, but there are significant differences. For starters, government agencies do not claim to run by divine fiat, nor do they owe their existence to a blatant disregard for and/or staggeringly dishonest revisionist interpretation of the Constitution and laws of the nation and state. These agencies also do not claim they are entitled to full public support while simultaneously being freed from any public oversight, unaccountable to anyone but themselves (and their deity, who conveniently backs everything they do). These approaches are, however, fundamental to the movement to use public funds for religious schools.
In my earlier article I speculated at length about the reasons why a movement like this has arisen: religious leaders are panicked by the precipitous decline in membership, corresponding decline in money, and a potentially bleak future for the institutions that have traditionally defined and maintained their respective religions. I am far from indifferent to these problems—I am, after all, a Catholic Christian who usually writes about spirituality and mysticism—but I am convinced the movement to publicly fund religious institutions, with all the movement’s ethical failings and spiritual falsity, is an egregiously terrible development. If many of our society’s religious and political leaders are dedicated to self-dealing and maintaining increasingly rickety institutional structures, then it is up to the rest of us to defend the potential victims of these predators and promote truth, goodness and beauty.
Image: Pajero bishop scandal (Source).
_Filipinos_protest_against_the_Bishops_that_allegedly_accepted_money_and_luxury_cars_from_former_president_Macapagal-Arroyo_in_exchange_for_support.jpg){kind=link}