Church-State Separation on Trial: Rachel Laser on Two Critical SCOTUS Cases

Note: We recorded this episode before we learned about the decision in the St. Isidore case.

 religious beliefs being weaponized to reshape public education? In this episode, Rachel Laser—CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State—joins hosts Will and Josh to unpack two major Supreme Court cases: Mahmoud v. Taylor and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. Both cases carry huge implications for the future of religious freedom, public schooling, and church-state separation.

Laser explains how one case centers on parents trying to opt out of LGBTQ-inclusive books, while the other could open the floodgates for religious public charter schools funded by taxpayer dollars. Drawing from legal expertise and personal faith, Laser offers a bold and nuanced defense of pluralism, public education, and constitutional integrity. With the stakes this high, these rulings could redefine what it means to be an American student—or a person of faith.

👤 Guest Bio
Rachel Laser is the President and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. A lawyer, strategist, and advocate, Laser previously served as deputy director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. She is a frequent commentator on First Amendment issues and a national voice defending the integrity of church-state separation.

🔗 Resource Links
Americans United for Separation of Church and State: https://www.au.org
Mahmoud v. Taylor: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/mahmoud-v-taylor/

Split Supreme Court blocks first religious charter school in Oklahoma: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/split-supreme-court-blocks-first-religious-charter-school-in-oklahoma/

Transcript

0:17

Hey, welcome back, Faithful Politics listeners and watchers. If you're watching us on our YouTube channel, we are so glad to have you. I'm your political host Will Wright, and I'm joined by my trusty sidekick uh and your faithful host, Josh Bertram. How's it going, Josh? Doing great, thanks Will. And today with us we have returning Rachel wait laser or laser Thank you and and i'll i'll tell you why I asked because I watched you guys did a uh thing some time ago and the person announced he said laser and I was sitting there thinking Is it laser have I been saying it? not it. I was like, oh, no one briefed her. That was not... She did fine. was just you know, I was questioning my own like like like pronunciation anyway, so we have Rachel Lizer with us She's the CEO of Americans United for Separate Church and State which is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church state separation She is a lawyer and advocate and strategist uh And is just an all-around cool person. I don't know. We like her but she's here today to talk to us about a couple of very relevant SCOTUS cases that they just heard oral arguments on. And yeah, we're just so happy to have you back, Rachel. It's so good to be with you both. Thanks for having me back. Yeah, thank you. uh so, okay, so the two cases that we're going to talk about, and I'm probably going to butcher this name, it's the Mahmoud v. Taylor and the Saint Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. Both of these cases, I think, have some religious liberty connotation. So let's let's start first with the Mahmoud v. Taylor, because I think that's probably a little bit easier. uh Can you unpack what that is? How did it get to the court? ah and just tell us a little bit about sort of the details behind it. Absolutely. This is a case about parents in Maryland, um Muslim and Christian parents who come together and file this lawsuit. They want an opt-out to basically like the reading curriculum of the school, the public school in Maryland. And there was a process for choosing what books qualify, uh can be used as part of this curriculum. The oral arguments before the Supreme Court make it's a little bit unclear even how it's being implemented, like what is required to be read or not read or is there just books on the shelf or whatever. But uh the case is genuinely about LGBTQ. It's focused on LGBTQ character books um and parents that have a religious objection to their kids being exposed to these books. And so a free exercise of religion, constitutional claim, they lost. in the lower courts, including in the Fourth Circuit and petition to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court, you know, took the case. um The Supreme Court does seem to continue to be chomping at the bit to take cases that involve claims of a religious right to have an exception to a law. uh And, you know, I think it's important for me as a person of faith herself, I'm Jewish and proud of my faith, to distinguish the fact that religion is on one side of this case from all religion. Because our uh friend of the court brief that we submitted to the Supreme Court was on behalf of lot of religious denominations and groups, including Methodists and um Jews and uh Unitarians and others who all are coming together. I sometimes feel like in our society, we use religion as a proxy for conservative Christians. And I just think the beauty of America is that we have a lot of different religions. In fact, yes, we have a lot of different religions because of church-state separation, but more on that later. So basically in this case, these parents wanted an opt-out to their kids being exposed to these books. at first the school, granted an opt out and then decided it just wasn't workable. So the parents are unhappy. uh The school basically says, the school side says, you know, no one is forcing a set of beliefs on your children. Like your children are not being taught this is right, this is wrong. Your children are being exposed to... different types of people who are part of our community and that's public schools do in part. They teach us to coexist across our differences. Right, here's the term that I love about America, well, that I want for America, unity without uniformity. Unity without uniformity. And so that's what, you these public schools are sort of, that's who we are, like in our DNA as a country. who we pledge to be in our commitment to religious freedom and pluralism. And so our public schools are teaching us how to be part of that. And that's why the process that they went through, they had a process, include these books, but these parents are saying, we're not happy we want an opt out. And it went to the Supreme Court. I can tell you what we think, but I'll pause there. I really appreciate the overview. It was interesting as I was thinking about our conversation today and preparing for it. Something came to my mind. I'd to get your thoughts on this, because I think we we may have had you on, but I know we had some other, I know we had other people want to talk about Bremerton, the Bremerton case. them in. Yeah, Amanda Tyler, I didn't know if we had Rachel as well. But anyway, so we talked about the Bremerton case and essentially where they sided with this coach, right, who could pray. um part of the issue is that they're like, I think if I remember correctly in the defense was like um or against like uh against this person being able to this coach being able to do it was that you're forcing people, students to sit there and listen to this authority who's praying, doing something very religious, very, I guess they would say religious or ideological. I kind of see them very similar personally, but that doesn't mean they're legally defined the same. But I was struck by the fact that on the one hand, it seems like we have a court that is okay with people doing these kind of explicit religious things and requiring students to or saying they, you know, that it doesn't violate their religious freedom or the separation. And then on the other side, it seems like the court probably like, I don't know, just because of its conservative makeup right now, would probably side, I'm guessing, the parents in this case. which would be saying we don't want our children to be, you know, have to be exposed to this by an authority or by someone who is, you know, reading these things. I don't know, like you said, like I don't know what the method of how they would be exposed to this stuff was. If it was curriculum, if it was just a book on the shelf reading. But what's the difference between these things? Why is it? Why do you think in one case that they're ruling this way and in the other one, this arguments that parents should have this choice? Is there tension there? What do you think is what's going on? Do you think between these things? That's an amazing question. we actually at Americans United for Separation of Church and State represented the school district and argued before the Supreme Court on what turned out to be the losing side. So no one about that case. And we actually, I went myself to Bremerton to organize faith leaders there and the faith leaders from Bremerton who weighed in in that case, all weighed in on the side of the school district and not the coach in an amicus brief, which I thought was fascinating. And they were primarily Christian and some Jews. um So here's what I think, it's a great question. And here's what I think the difference is because it's an alluring comparison, but in the Coach Kennedy case, number one and first and foremost, it was a prayer. It was a prayer. I mean, no one tried to deny that it was a prayer. That it wasn't a prayer, it was a prayer. And therefore, we are directly talking about something religious. So for one, if you're non-religious or something like that, you know, we're dealing with a religious prayer, right? The coach was... Christian and while it's true that Jews sometimes spontaneously pray, it's much less common a practice for Jews. I kind of love the way Christians do, like I kind of get into it. Because it sets a nice tone and it kind of gets us outside of the moment in a way that is helpful sometimes, so long as it's inclusive. But I think that... that this was more of a Christian oriented prayer. So not just religious, but kind of one type of religion. um Oftentimes, like when I went on Christian radio, which I love to do, by the way, love like invite me on Fox, invite me on Christian radio. You know, I'll be asked like, well, if you can, know, like, why can't we have the 10 commandments in the classroom if we like, why can you have the LGBTQ flag? in the classroom is like a similar kind of like that question is to me like in a way at the heart of what your question is. And I think the answer is number one, or maybe I'll just put it this way. There's not a separation of LGBTQ and state or a separation of flags and state. There is a separation of church and state and the thing about that is and this is where like I want to yell this from the mountaintop like it protects religion it's good for religion because look what for example this administration is doing with colleges and even if you agree with it like what with the positions that they're taking like you you also have to agree that they are using the support they give directly to colleges to control college teaching and curricula. who wants, who who is a person of genuine faith wants that to happen to their religion? Nobody. And that's what church-state separation does. It protects religion in that way. Yeah, I'm speaking about the college thing. I've been wondering, you know, what point in time are they going to be going, you know, after like the bailers of the world? Doing like, hey, you will you will, you know, only teach out of the Trump Bible, the thousand dollar version, not the sixty dollar version. And you will use, uh you know, versions of the Negro Bible as well. ah I mean, these are just fears I have, which... like the executive order that came out of the administration against diversity, equity, and inclusion, in my faith, those are part of our faithful values in Reform Judaism. And I used to run the staff that I worked for the Reform Jewish Movement, actually, for a while and did a lot of interfaith work. And I used to run the resolutions committee. we have like, theology resolutions on these things that are rooted in the Hebrew Bible. So again, you know, in a, not in a way actually, you know, through kind of tying up anti-diversity equity and inclusion with government support, the government is already beginning to have an effect on religion. You know, for any institution that deals with even telegrams or just government money in any way, uh government research, et cetera. And that's what, again, just going back to it, we just don't want religion being interfered with. Dr. King, it's kind of beautiful to me that he actually had a position on church-state separation. Like I loved that when I came to AU, was like, that man, he covered like... all the ground, you know? And you know, said that the church should neither be the master or the servant of the state because it should be the conscience of the state. How about that? How can you the conscience of the state if it's like, well, we won't be that hard on you. Just keep giving us those millions or billions, you know, like it won't be. Yeah, so with the Mahmoud Taylor case, you know of any of the examples of the books that were kind of in question? Because if you're approaching this blind and you don't really know that much about the case and you hear it's about religious organizations having an issue with books in the library, you know. most people will probably be like, are they like pornographic? Are they, you know, like not age appropriate? Like tell us a little bit about these books in question. I don't have the names of the books in front of me. forget. You could say them and I would recognize them, but they're, you know, gay characters and they're drag drag queen characters. And I know that that is a complete touch point, like inflammatory, like, whoa, okay. You know, drag queen boom, you know, but I think that puppy and Uncle Bobby's wedding? I think I just found them. There you go, right. And it's like, even the names and like, you know, but it's like, I think the thing is, who's like public schools get to have expertise and processes for making these decisions? There are school boards, there are all sorts of aspects to how that works. And they really did have a process for this. you know, they like, where are we going to say, like those processes are, you know, put in place to make sure that the curricula is, is shaped by those who know best what public schools are trying to do. you know, and, and I think again, like just coming back, Josh to your really good question, like the praying football coach, I would like to have the pray to play football coach versus the, you know, the, the, um, know, LGBTQ, like books being exposed to those books. Like, I think another difference, we talked about prayer and Christian prayer before, but I think another difference is when you're at the 50 yard line directly after a game, like that is the time for the motivational talk from the coach. Like I played all the sports, right? Like I was there for those, you know? And you gotta go, like you gotta go, that's similar to the classroom. And... And it's a team moment. You know what mean? Like I go, I'm holding my hands out because you're like huddled together. It's like a team moment. You either lost and you're all feeling it, like you're really hurting and you're like, but you're with each other or you won and like it's this unified glory moment. And if you're not, it's a participation thing. Like if you're not participating also you are. standing out for your coach who clearly has a preference, you're standing out for your teammates. But here, all the kids are sitting quietly listening to a book be read, or there's like a book on the shelf. That's an option. And frankly, a kid could go home and say, well, this is what I learned to, know, mom, mommy, like what's a drag queen? And a parent who wasn't, whose faith was, like not into transgender, could say, you know, in our faith, you know, here's what we believe, you know, and go to Trump's executive order, which is a religious order, which says that gender is established from conception. The idea of from conception is religious, right? Because not everybody believes that life begins at conception. And also, uh Like at first, as far as I know, and I'm not a doctor, but like there's a lot of similarities there in the gender anyway. But, and then there's intersex people who are a whole different category and they were kind of erased. ah No, they were fully erased by that order and they're real. But anyway, I digress. So a parent really does, like the kid doesn't have to say the prayer, you know what I mean? Or say, like no one's being required to say, I believe. in transgender people and transgender rights. Okay, kids, all at once in this unified moment. It's like a book that just mentions people like this. okay, so they exist, which by the way, like they exist. And that reminds me of the Masterpiece Cake Shop case. I wanna tell you why. Remember that case about Jack Phillips, the baker, and Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the gay couple who were turned away? um They couldn't get the cake. Well, the reason that the court ruled on the side of the bakery, and it was sort of this mixed victory, was because they said the Colorado Civil Rights Commissioner, who heard the case below, one of them said something about how religion has been used in the past to discriminate as well. And she was, the commissioner was against Jack Phillips, the baker. And they were like, and it's been used to justify slavery. and it's been used to justify the Holocaust. And you know what? Justice Kennedy called that hostility to religion. By the way, I called boldly, and forgive me because I know this is like an inflammatory term today, but I called it white Christian fragility. I really did because the truth is like when you name a truth and all that that... That was a truth and it's a hard truth. It's an inflammatory truth, but it is true if you understand history, right? And so like the parallel here is just having a book where those characters exist, like is naming a truth. Like there are people in your Maryland community who are like this, like it or not. You can go home and talk about it with your kids. can, but. You're being exposed to a reality. It's not being like, again, it's not a prayer or an endorsement. It's just like a stating of a reality like the commissioner in the Masterpiece Cake Shop cake. Yeah, that's, I like your thinking and I like your reasoning on that in the sense that like, you know, these are realities that we have to deal with and no matter where you fall on this, you know, for me personally, right, my kids, I never knew anyone. that was in the LGBT community, not in my family, um maybe at my school, but I wasn't friends with them when I grew up. I didn't know anybody that would have claimed that when I grew up, and I was a Nova, I mean, wasn't necessarily in like a conservative stronghold. I mean, in 2008, I don't know what it was like. I mean, I guess I graduated in 2004. But... But so I didn't have to deal with that, but my kids, know, they have family members that are in the LGBT community. They have family members that have gotten married in the same sex relationship. And I and we have to talk about it, right? Or or we're just ignoring it. And it's like it's just strange and not not genuine. And, know, when I was looking at this case, if I can, I'll just read the issue like this is from the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute about the Mahmoud V. Taylor. The issue does a public school burden a family's religious exercise when it requires elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against the family's convictions without notice or opportunity to hop out. And I guess with that specific question, thinking about that, I tend to think I mean, I tend to think I think parents should have a right to say, know, I don't certainly get notice about it, certainly get curriculum about it. Now, again, did this happen in this case? I actually, I don't know. I haven't really read into it, but it looks like the issue is kind of more like, hey, are we going to, like, what precedent is this going to set, right? What on a wide basis, not necessarily specifically in this case. Right. This case has specifics, but then how does that pan out to parental authority? Because I think a big thing that comes in this is the role of the parent and in education and that tension between parent and education system, which sometimes has felt like, and this is from a right perspective, right? From a conservative perspective. And I would love to know how this could be corrected, honestly. because there's a feeling like there's this animosity or adversity between school systems and parents. And it feels like that's very, very antithetical to what we want in our country, which is a partnership as opposed to some kind of, you know, back and forth. I mean, I can only imagine as, you know, some of these 10 commandments, you know, this curriculum is coming out, there's going to be a lot of parents that are not happy about right, that their parents, the kids are getting exposed. It's kind of religious, know, explicitly religious doctrine in class. I guess what, what, what are the, from your understanding, what are the main issues here? Like if this gets, let me put it this way. If this gets, if, if they win, the parents win, what ends up happening as a result? Yep. Like what, not, yay, this is victory, but what is the actual after effect of this within schools? And then if they lose, what's the after effect of this? Okay. So let's start with if they win, which is definitely more likely. ah So what we're not talking about here is like an opt out in sex ed or some kind of like add on to the curriculum that's in a very like deeply personal body type of space. Like what we're talking about is like a very mainstay part. of curriculum. And so the issue is, and truly, I think you'd be, I'd love your reaction to this, but how can you draw a line between this opt out and an opt out on the teaching of evolution? or like this opt out or let's say there's like a unit on. the women's liberation movement. or something like that. Or let's say that there's a unit on America's history of racism. Hmm. Like where, like where can you stop this opt out? If you're talking about like part of the mainstay and that's really what concerns me the most. I agree with you that there should be a dialogue between parents. I love that, you know, and school boards, I think, but it's like, and all parents matter, right? All parents, all parents. I just wanna be really clear. Like number one, when it comes to this transgender stuff, It's like, you know, the parents of transgender kids tend to be like transgender advocates from what I've seen. They're like seeing it in their kids and it feels really real and you know your kids best. And so like, what about those parental rights? It's like that matters too. But also like for communities that are feeling, you know, more uncomfortable, you know, I get it. I get it. um And the school should be in dialogue with those parents about are there things that we can do? You know, maybe we do give notice. I don't know. I love that. Like maybe that's not a Supreme Court order. But like, you know, that would be a great thing to work out. Like we'll give, if we're gonna be, you know, reading, you know, doing a unit that has a lot of those books, we're gonna let you know so you can have conversations at home with your kids or something like, I don't know, those types of, I mean, again, I haven't thought it through deeply, so don't hold me to it, but. I'm like those types of dialogues, like in those types of like, let's look for where we can kind of make this work, you know? So those are my concerns for, you know, if we win or if they win, excuse me. And if the parents win as well, I think what that could lead to is a situation where the curricula in public schools are kind of almost through a Hefler's veto shaped by those vocal one set of parents over public school district thinks in its judgment and processes should be taught for the sake of fostering unity without uniformity. And so I think that is of great concern because I think that's been reported, right? But that tends to happen that. If there's a lot of parents that start to opt out and it just, are those kids going to be doing? And it's just easier sometimes to just get rid of this stuff. And then you start having one set of, I just want one set of religious beliefs, right? Just one set or a couple of sets, you know, shape a public school curriculum. And that's the problem. So I think that's a problem. If the parents lose, I think that what I hope is that we're, what I hope for, but I don't think we're all the way there in this country, is that there would be very sincere efforts made to dialogue with parents who are unhappy about like, can we talk about it? Are there any ways to soften this that we could, that don't compromise? what we're trying to do, but that helped you out, you because you matter too. um And I just, again, like, I don't like those religious beliefs just because like, I think honestly, and funny Josh, like, I realized how many of my values are shaped by my religion too, you know? uh And by my American values. mean, I would say, that America is about accepting our differences and learning to kind of come together across what we share as our American values. Like to me, that is what America is promising. It's not achieved it fully, but that's what it's promising. And I love that about America, but I do, but a lot of Jews do, you know, cause we were like able to flee religious persecution and come over here and, know, relatively speaking, we've been able to thrive. It's a little... a little more, it's this weird mixture of antisemitism and phylo-semitism today. And anyway, that's a whole nother topic. So I don't feel like it's a great moment for American Jews right now, personally. um so I think if the parents lose, it would be a great moment for dialogue to happen. That's what I think. Do I think it's gonna happen? Let's make it happen. Yeah, let's do it. OK, so I want to switch gears here, um talk about the Saint Isidore um case um of which Josh and I recently spoke with Shannon Fleck um and we told her we're going to be speaking with you and she got super excited. So I told her I would save her the questions about the Saint Isidore stuff, given that, you know, she's in the thick of it. So lay it out for us. What is the Saint Isidore case? Give us sort of the backstory. and how did it get to the Supreme Court? Yep. Oh boy. Well, there is a virtual charter school board in Oklahoma. um And that virtual charter school board, which is a governmental board gets to decide, you know, on who's going to be charter school in Oklahoma. And a Catholic school, St. Isadora Seville, uh run by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Oklahoma applied. um And it doesn't hide that it's a Catholic school. um You know, it would abide by the teachings of the Catholic faith and the sort of teachings on sexuality as well as in there. um And like on the website, I once went to their website and checked it out. all are welcome so long as you abide by our belief system. So I'm like, hmm, would I really feel welcome? That doesn't make me feel very welcome. Yeah, but like, hmm, like you can come, but don't be your authentic self. uh So anyway, basically it was, there was a lot of politics involved and someone who dropped off the board and then like the quick appointment of someone new to the virtual charter school board. The school got through and was set to open. And Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit on behalf of clergy and parents and public school advocates with our allies in the state, the ACLU and an education organization, Oklahoma Appleseed, just saying. um that it is unconstitutional under the Oklahoma state constitution and against the charter school law in Oklahoma that very clearly states that charter schools are public schools to have a religious public school, which is what this would be. uh But then we weren't the only ones who filed the lawsuit. So did the Republican Attorney General Drummond, which was amazing. And I actually went up to him. was at the Supreme Court for the oral argument in Psalm, and I went up to him and I said, thank you. You know, we're really a fan of your lawsuit and, you know, really appreciate what you're doing. And, you know, I had a quick conversation with him. It was good. So he filed his own lawsuit directly to the state Supreme Court and the court ruled decidedly against St. Isadore. saying that it was an abject violation of church-state separation under the Oklahoma state constitution. A pretty beautiful thing, you know, from the Oklahoma state court. Very clear. I was talking to Reverend Lori Waukee, who's one of our plaintiffs in the case, and uh she comes from a conservative Christian background. She's a now United Church of Christ pastor in the state, but she's in touch with a lot of conservative Christians and said there is a lot of discomfort. around this and around uh Superintendent Ryan Walter's Bible mandate. I liked her word discomfort. I thought that was an interesting, you some people talk about people being angry and I think people on the left might be angry, but I think people all across the political spectrum are uncomfortable because this is such a summing of the nose of what Oklahoma and America are about, which is religious freedom. So the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. And what's a little bit freaky is that there wasn't like the typical circuit split, like some appellate courts or state Supreme Courts had gone one way on this and other state Supreme Courts have gone another way on this. So the court better come in and decide it. Again, it's part of this eagerness, this appetite to take cases uh on behalf of kind of privileging, usually conservative Christianity. But, you know, the Mock Moon case complicates it, but we can talk about that. mean, not really in my view. um And so um the case was appealed and the US Supreme Court took it. Just as Amy Coney Barrett uh recused herself from the case, there wasn't like an official explanation. She's friends with Nicole Garnett from the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Clinic. The Notre Dame Religious Liberty Clinic is are the lawyers for St. Isidore, Alliance Defending Freedom are the lawyers for the Virtual Charter School Board, um First Liberty who defended the Pray to Play football coach are the lawyers for Ryan Walters in the case. oh it's kind of a who's who of, uh yeah, what we call the sort of ultra conservative religious extremist groups in the country. That's our labeling. Forgive me, Josh, if that went in your ears. It's accurate. good. Okay. uh And so the court heard the case and I was there for it, you know, in the courtroom. And it was, um it only takes, if four justices only are in support of St. Isidore, it would be tied because Justice Amy Coney Barrett has recused herself before four. And if that happened, the state Supreme court would stand. If that happened, see Isidore with boobs. So really, it's a question of Chief Justice Roberto, no, Robert. That's it. That's what it largely comes down to here. So this is interesting because it brings up a lot of thoughts in my head. Like one, it's like, if we're... So I'm not necessarily opposed to government funds going to a school like this. And the reason is not because I think Christianity should be funded by the government. I actually don't think that because the government then controls it. when they have the funds and I don't think that's a good idea in terms of like those that funding But I'm not opposed to it. If then that is also available for Muslim schools Jewish schools, I don't know whatever right, you know, and I don't know how complicated that gets, know logistically and I think like when I'm When I'm wrestling through this issue itself It's like, I guess it's kind of the same question as before. Like, what is at stake? I guess so. Like, is it that like when if if if Isidore wins, then, you know, basically all these, you know, conservative Christian schools are going to be popping up, taking money from, you know, public schools and inner city schools or whatever it may be and complicating the system and and not letting any other religions really have this. Like, what, I guess, what is the, what's really at stake in this decision? And yeah, that's enough, go ahead. That's a great question. So one quick story and then a list of what's at stake. The story is about a virtual charter school operator from Florida who is Jewish, who heard about the St. Isidore case and said, like a lot of Orthodox Jews say, you know, this could be great. Like, we could have Jewish funding too. We could use that too, you know, for Jewish schools. like you were saying, you know, and then he went to Oklahoma, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the JTA, which is a press, and took it back and said, there actually aren't enough Jews here for this to be practical. I actually don't think that there will be Jewish schools that actually, or enough Jewish schools to make this like a real option for Jewish kids. And I think, you know, oftentimes that could be the same for Muslims. And not just that, but there's so much anti-Muslim bigotry that, you know, you got to ask yourself, is that going to be approved, like in practice as much of the time? You know, a lot of people said if the football coach had been Muslim, you know, and he put down his mat to say one of their ritualistic prayers, would have that been allowed at the 50 yard line? uh, doubt it, doubt it. And even, you know, this was controversial and I didn't like it. Um, but I think, uh, attorney general Drummond led off his argument at the Oklahoma state Supreme court by talking about like Muslim, you want Muslim schools, you know, and I don't, I think that's stating a fact, but I also think it's potentially playing to anti-Muslim bigotry. And I don't think we need more of that in this country. Um, So anyway, the list now as promised, that was the story. uh Number one, yes, the diversion of money away from public schools that really need it to more of these religious schools, right, that are gonna start popping up because what religious entity wouldn't be like, I mean, they're all hurting, all of them are hurting. You know, everyone's hurting right now anyway. And they'll be like, here's an opportunity to get government money. Like, yes, please. So you got more of those being funded. So then you have less money going to the inclusive public schools that really need it. You have maybe like in your community, maybe like the only option for a public school is a, is a religious school that pops up. And then you're sending your kids to a school that isn't your faith, which is. not right and not American and not comfortable with the government school. And then there's, you know, what happens next outside of even public education and the public education thing is scary for what could happen long term religious public school. Like it would just be a sea change in this country and it would, in my view, like my kids all went to public school, like it would take away. a glue, a glue for our communities and for our country, which I can't think of a time where that glue is more desperately needed and to teach our kids to coexist and to respect across differences. And sometimes we even celebrate those differences in public schools. And then also like the shared values that we, you know, that we have in this country, but like, will next it be considered a violation. This is the real question that's so concerning, Will and Josh. Is church-state separation, which is part of our promise of religious freedom, very clearly, is that going to be considered a constitutional violation of free exercise of religion? That's pretty spooky. And if it is, And it's spooky because of all the things that we're talking about, about protecting the sanctity of religion and about the religious freedom of our neighbors in this country, both of those things, right? And I think there's a lot of Christians I've met who care deeply about both, you know, and about American democracy, which would, I don't think America would be recognizable if church-state separation is considered a constitutional violation. But next is it like social service providers, who religious who already can get government money, which is fine for their social services, so long as they're serving everyone and they're not making requirements around religion for everyone. But next could it be that they get, like it's considered discrimination against religion if they don't get to make those requirements so that like people who aren't of the faith but are needy. And we're talking now about like usually like the least among us, right? In Christian terms or like people who have needs. and the government's supposed to help them out and they have to go and they have to forsake part of like their core identity in order to have access to those services, not good. So, you know, I think that there are other outside of public education consequences as well. But public education alone is big, you know, and really detrimental, the attack on public education. Yeah, you know with cases like these and other similar ones, one of the issues I run into, especially when I'm talking about it with people, is trying to make the case um of why I'm concerned or why this is something that you should be watching. um And I just finished a really phenomenal book um by Rusty Hawkins. It's called The Bible Told Me So. em It's, I pulled it up, How Southern Evangelicals Fought to Preserve White Supremacy. And it's a phenomenal book that really kind of walks through some of the history of like school vouchers, charter schools, all the stuff that happened like post Brown v Board of Education. So I'd love for it for you to maybe, you know, give us sort of the Reader's Digest version of why a lot of Christians specifically look at the stuff that know the history are like, scratching their head wondering is this just a repeat of you know what happened back in the 60s and 70s. So you're asking, so basically Brown versus Board of Education in the 50s inspired a white lash, which in part took place in the form of the birth of the private school voucher movement, which was an effort to be white for white Christians to be able to take their kids out of these desegregated by mandate public schools. and send them to white and Christian academies that were segregated and have money. Money is all about the money, right? And have money for that. And that's been documented, as you say, sort of everywhere. um So this movement is a movement that I like PRRI, the research firm, talks about this way. White Christian nationalism is a political ideology and a cultural construct that believes in the, I would call it a lie, that America is a God-ordained country for white Christians. And really, the battle that we're fighting is between, are we a God-ordained country for white or European Christians? Or are we a pluralistic democracy. those are like that's what this whole fight is about. And by the way, in a pluralistic democracy, white Christians belong to white, straight, male, cisgender Christians belong to in that democracy. And that is so important. And I feel like we don't say that enough. And I know that a lot of people will be like, well, we don't need to say that. And you know, all the privilege and But we do need to say that because there's a lot of white, straight, this gender Christian men who are hurting a lot in this country on top of everyone else who's hurting. And that doesn't mean that we don't have other identities that have long histories. No one else came to this country in chains except for black people. No one else was here in the first place and literally had diseases. spread among their people and their land pillaged and stuff than indigenous people. Like those truths are truths as well, but it's also true that this has to be a land for everyone. But I think it's also true that you can't use your religious beliefs as a justification to harm your brothers and sisters. You can't do it because that would be asking our government to let your religion take precedence over other people's religion. And that's not what America's about. So that's where the conflict comes. And you can, know, what I would call, then it comes down to harm and what is harm and all this. You could do it in your own community privately, but you can't do it where the government's involved, you know? And um so, yes, I do think that it was very strange will during the oral argument. to hear Justice Alito start to talk about the 1619 project. And he put out a series of hypotheticals that I'm still wrapping my head around how to articulate why it felt really uncomfortable from a racism perspective. ah But it did feel uncomfortable. And I don't know if it's because in a way it was like this effort to that, and he talked about teaching jazz and rap instead of other music. I mean, it was really quite a series of hypotheticals, ah but I think the point that made me uncomfortable was something around, there was some fragility there about whiteness that, uh and also this effort to equate teaching about America's true history or the different types of music in our culture, including music that you can proudly attribute to black people uh more than white people as the creators, that somehow that is playing favorites in the same way as religion. Letting a religious school be religious would be playing favorites. But what if that's just America? Like America is just, again, back to Josh, point we were making earlier, like... There are all these different types of music. And like what happened in 1619 with the first slave ships arriving, it happened. Like it is, it actually happened and it's really sad and it's okay. Like I used to actually, it's a secret part of me, but I used to secret, not really secret, it's on the web, but like I used to run workshops for white people to talk about like bridging racial divide. And, but the way I did it was with love. for my fellow white people to be like, we don't have to hide under a cave. No black people I know want you to hide under a cave. No one is trying to make white people feel shame. That is just not it. Are you responsible for what your grandparents or great grandparents did? No. Do you benefit from it? Yes. But what can you do right now? A lot. And by the way, we're not asking you to step aside. No, like there are all sorts of things that I have to say about that and so much of that discomfort around like racial divide is part of what we're talking about today. So sorry, Will, that was a lot and it wasn't quite direct in response, but I think that's what maybe you were getting at. Yeah, no worries at all. My last question for you is just, you know, the Saint Isidore thing seems like it would set a precedent if it goes in favor of the virtual school. So I'd love for you just to kind of talk about the precedent it would set and then what sort of the national impact, like the real deal, you national impact that this will... probably have given that you and your folks are kind of deeper in the weeds than we are. There's a bunch of probably, I'm sure, litigation, stuff all around the country happening. So just talk about the precedent and then the impact. Yeah, I mean, so like the impact is really that list that I gave before. mean, you know, inclusive public schools being fewer and less well-funded, more religious schools popping up in communities around the country and there being fewer options for parents. so kids potentially feeling quite honestly like on that part of the out group, you know, in school, which is already like the whole kid in out group thing is already like a thing and it hurts learning and it's like a big deal. obviously could lead to bullying, know, and things like that. um You know, I think, um I also think like, like religion wars, like I think, you know, like, well, is the Jewish or the Muslim school going to be approved, you know, in the, the school board next. And it's like, that is literally, and I know there's not a lot of love among all communities for our founders today. I mean, they have some great ideas. have some flaws. but like that is literally what the founders were trying to avoid were those like religious words. And I just, feel like it would lead to a lot of division. I do think that it could lead to an effort to like clarify again that charter schools in particular, cause this case is about a charter school, are public schools and to like make the way the state is regulating and involved with them. And here, mean, even the federal charter school law acknowledges that they're public schools. So it'd be kind of a strange, like, we will have been operating in a way that the solicitor general from the Trump administration says is unconstitutional and against free exercise, like, for a long time already, even under the federal charter school law, because we've been not allowing religious schools to be, so it's kind of a... Like it's a very strange setup, but I do think that there could be like some legislative efforts that we'd see or battles to clarify and make even more clear. mean, it's very clear in Oklahoma already. I mean, it's part of the law, the charter school law, but to bend over backwards to show the way that these virtual religious or even religious charter schools, they're formed by the state, right? them becoming a charter school is a state decision. They're dissolved by the state. Their curricula are regulated by the state in these ways, right? Like all those things. um Also, I think like there could be a state legislative battle that plays out. And also there'd need to be some federal action as well. um All of it. Wow, thanks so much for talking through that for us. And thank you for coming on the program, Rachel. It's been a real pleasure to have you and be able to pick your brain and get the advantage of having your thoughts and insight on these issues. So thank you so much. uh appreciate the opportunity and I appreciate the space that you, Josh and Will, are creating to have these conversations because they're so important to America. So important. So thank you. thank you. Yeah, what do you have coming up next um in a project? How can people follow you and what you guys are doing there at America's United? asking. Please, everyone, if you feel at all moved by what I was saying about church-state separation, we'd so love you to join us at au.org. We're on all sorts of social media, at Americans United. We run a summit for religious freedom every year that you should come to. And tell your friends about us and really like take pride. again in the fact that church-state separation is an American original. It's an idea that came from people who love religion and love religious freedom and take pride that if you are a patriot, you should be supporting church-state separation. Yes and we are very big on church state separation here at Faithful Politics. We think it's best for both and so man we are just so appreciative Rachel and to our viewers and listeners guys thanks for joining us. Again we are interviewing Rachel Lazar who's the president CEO of Americas United for the separation of church and state. Make sure you go check out the website we'll put links in the description and show notes. guys please like subscribe share this with people because we definitely need to be passing these conversations on and talking about them not ignoring them or just staying in our own echo chambers so guys please do that and until next time guys keep your conversations that right or left but up thanks and God bless