This red-state attorney general has declared war on the First Amendment



We thought the Supreme Court had finally purged anti-religious discrimination from Establishment Clause jurisprudence. After years of confusion — conflating the ban on state-sponsored religion with an invented mandate to scrub faith from public life — the Court, through a series of rulings on religious schools and public funding, had restored sanity. It returned the law to its pre-Warren era understanding: Equal treatment of religion does not violate the Constitution.

Yet, here we are again.

Those who claim that equal treatment of religion violates the Establishment Clause are the ones betraying its meaning.

In a move that stunned observers, Oklahoma’s own Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond and the state supreme court now argue that states cannot recognize religious charter schools.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. The case centers on St. Isidore, a Catholic online school seeking to join Oklahoma’s charter school system. Drummond contends the school’s religious affiliation disqualifies it. He sued the state charter board — a move usually made by the ACLU or militant secularist groups.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with him. The court claimed that granting charter status to a Catholic school would violate the First Amendment by effectively establishing Catholicism as a state religion. Justices labeled charter schools “state actors” and argued that any religious affiliation disqualifies a school from public recognition.

This logic turns the First Amendment on its head. The Constitution does not require hostility toward religion. It requires neutrality. Denying a religious school access to a public benefit — simply because it is religious — violates precedent.

Oklahoma’s Charter Schools Act permits any “private college or university, private person, or private organization” to apply for state funding to open a charter school. Excluding religious applicants contradicts not one but three major Supreme Court rulings.

In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc v. Comer (2017), the court ruled that excluding a religious school from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified “solely because it is a church” is “odious to our Constitution.” That case involved a grant for playground resurfacing. If states can’t deny rubber mulch, they can’t deny full charter status.

In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), a 5-4 majority held that state constitutions barring aid to religious institutions over secular ones violates the Free Exercise Clause. Public benefits, the Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized, cannot be denied “solely because of the religious character of the schools.”

Then came Carson v. Makin (2022), where Maine tried to distinguish between religious status and religious use, barring religious schools from voucher funds. The court rejected the distinction. Roberts, writing again for the majority, ruled that the program “operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.” He warned that attempts to judge how a religious school carries out its mission invite unconstitutional state entanglement.

So how, after such ironclad precedent, do we find a Republican state attorney general and a court in a state Trump carried in every county ruling that religious schools can’t even apply for public funding?

The answer lies in years of lukewarm Republican control. These are Republicans in name only, who blocked judicial reform and refused to challenge activist courts. Now, Drummond wants a promotion. He’s announced his run for governor after already overruling the state education superintendent’s decision to ban pornography in public libraries.

This case reveals a larger pattern. Courts act as a one-way ratchet. Even after strong Supreme Court rulings, liberal lower courts defy precedent. They delay, split hairs, and distinguish without merit. The high court may reverse Oklahoma, but its rulings rarely secure lasting victories.

And the irony? Those who claim that equal treatment of religion violates the Establishment Clause are the ones betraying its meaning.

During the House debate on the First Amendment in 1789, James Madison explained: “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”

That principle — freedom of conscience without coercion — shaped the American experiment. Far from excluding religion, the founders assumed its influence. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” He added that politics and religion formed an “alliance which has never been dissolved.”

It’s time for the Supreme Court to reaffirm that alliance — clearly, decisively, and without leaving room for lower courts to ignore. And in Oklahoma, it’s time to elect Republicans who still believe the Bible belongs in the Bible Belt.

Faith and family are keys to resisting tyranny’s grip



The evil doctrines of Marxism have infiltrated many institutions in the United States, leading conservatives to frame cultural and political battles as a contest between individualism and collectivism. On the surface, this makes sense. Marxism, as the ideology of communism, promotes state-enforced equality where individual agency is subordinated to a top-down notion of the collective good.

Many past conservative thinkers recognized this as a false binary, however. They understood that individualism, if left unchecked, can foster conditions that pave the way for tyranny. Lower-order organic identities — such as family, faith, and community — have repeatedly proven to be the only effective forces against the imposition of top-down despotism. The true battle is not between individualism and collectivism but between ordered liberty and disordered tyranny.

Framing our current opposition to Marxist dogma as a conflict between individualism and collectivism is a mistake.

In his classic work “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville explored the rise of individualism during the democratic age following the American and French revolutions. De Tocqueville believed a democratic trajectory was inevitable for France and sought to understand how Americans had managed to curb its worst impulses.

He observed that individualism often led people to focus solely on their own lives and interests, leaving them indifferent to the well-being of their neighbors and their communities. This lack of civic engagement, he argued, made it easier for despots to establish tyrannical rule. A despot thrives on individual apathy and the absence of civic virtue. He wrote:

Despotism, suspicious by its very nature, views the separation of men as the best guarantee of its own permanent rule and usually does all it can to keep them in isolation. No defect of the human heart suits it better than egoism; a tyranny is relaxed enough to forgive his subjects for failing to love him, provided that they do not love one another. He does not ask them to help him to govern the state; it is enough that they have no intention of managing it themselves.

How did Americans preserve a spirit of individualism while avoiding its corrosive effects on civic life? For de Tocqueville, the answer lay in their impulse to build free institutions and engage in voluntary associations. He observed that Americans had an instinct to form committees, community organizations, and charities to address almost every problem.

In the United States, individuals did not need to be ruled by a powerful despot because citizens were expected to actively contribute to the collective well-being of their communities through voluntary efforts. This approach was individualistic in that it arose organically and was not compelled by the state. But it was also collectivist in that individuals felt a profound duty to their families, churches, and communities.

Even when problems required government intervention, governance in America was primarily local. The national government remained small, and local matters were handled by elected officials who were familiar with the specific character and needs of their communities. According to de Tocqueville:

American legislators did not believe that a general representation of the whole nation would be enough to cure a disease so natural to the frame of democratic society and so fatal. They also thought it appropriate to give each area of the territory its own political life so as to multiply without limit the opportunities for citizens to act in concert and to let them realize every day their mutual dependence. This was a wise plan.

Despite their individualistic tendencies, the American system encouraged citizens to recognize their interdependence and address issues affecting their communities at the local level. The collective identity of the polis enabled them to resolve problems more effectively without formal government involvement.

Even when government action was necessary, it was limited in scope, shaped by the community’s identity and political structure. The state did not need to enforce collectivity because communities formed naturally, allowing individualism to thrive without descending into tyranny.

The greatest evidence of this principle can be found in the tactics used by communist regimes to centralize power. Marxists routinely advocate the destruction of the family, church, and even ethnic identity because these lower-order bonds obstruct the centralization of authority. As de Tocqueville observed, the isolated individual is most vulnerable to despotism.

Totalitarian regimes seek to ensure that all relationships are mediated between the individual and the state, leaving each person dependent on the central authority for assistance and conflict resolution. By contrast, people bound by organic ties of faith, family, and community are far more likely to resist the arbitrary dictates of a despot.

When Western governments attempted to create biomedical security states in the wake of COVID-19, it was almost exclusively communities of faith that had the courage to resist. Religious groups possessed an identity and allegiance that extended beyond individual material benefit. This collective identity gave them both the courage and community support needed to stand firm against the dictates of the regime. These communities were able to defend their liberty because they exercised it collectively, united in purpose.

The American tradition embodies individual liberty practiced in service to the collective good. It is a liberty ordered toward a higher purpose, pursued through the establishment of free institutions and voluntary associations. Framing our current opposition to Marxist dogma as a conflict between individualism and collectivism is a mistake.

Instead, we should understand that by practicing individual virtue in service to our organic communities, we can avoid the tyrannical state that Marxism prescribes. This ensures that liberty is not just a personal right but a shared responsibility to uphold the well-being of our families, faith, and communities.

Supreme Court Strikes A Blow To Government’s Union Favoritism

Most Americans have the horse sense to distance themselves from organized labor’s foibles. The government shouldn’t gainsay them.

Leftists Want Direct Democracy Because It’s Easy To Manipulate The Masses

Direct democracy not only represents a threat to freedom, but it is a political order that rejects hierarchies both natural and spiritual.

Christians Have Done The Most To Promote Liberty And Equality In America

Historian Mark David Hall’s new book, Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land, offers a corrective to an inaccurate narrative about Christianity.

Why Even A Corrupt Ukraine Is Worth Supporting Against Russian Aggression

The question is whether letting some U.S. aid corruptly enrich a few Ukrainians is worth it to degrade the threat of nuclear war with Russia.

Labor Day Is A Celebration Of American Exceptionalism, Job Creators, And Hard Workers

Labor Day should be recognized as the holiday that celebrates not only labor, but also the ideas, job creators, and institutions central to the flourishing of the United States and its people.

The French Revolution Doesn’t Hold A Candle To America’s War Of Independence

July’s tale of two revolutions highlights America’s superior system of government and, most importantly, its relationship with God.

If You Want America To Come Back To Life, Get Yourself And Your Friends Back To Church

Several years ago Dan Edmunds, a diplomate of the American Psychotherapy Association, said, “One of the most destructive problems is the breakdown of community, and it is this breakdown that has often led to the breakdown of persons. Though we may put many around us, we are alone.” For decades, a major source of community […]

Ukrainians Are Winning The War On Information

The ability to mobilize civil society, through media in particular, can tip the scales towards victory or defeat as much as bombs and tanks.