By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As Oklahoma’s Superintendent of Education, I’ve established a new Department of Religious Freedom and Patriotism, mandating that all public schools show students a video announcement. This video promotes religious liberty and patriotism, includes a prayer mentioning President Trump, and states that participation is optional. However, the Attorney General has declared this mandate unenforceable, citing conflicts with parental rights and local control. This action follows my previous, legally challenged mandate to incorporate Bibles into school curricula, further highlighting my ongoing efforts to combat what I perceive as “woke ideology” in schools.
Read the original article here
Oklahoma schools superintendent Ryan Walters’ mandate requiring all students to watch an announcement video for a newly created religious department has sparked significant controversy. This action, perceived by many as a blatant attempt at religious indoctrination, raises serious questions about the separation of church and state within the public education system.
The sheer audacity of such a mandate in a state already struggling with significant issues like low education rankings, poor healthcare, and high poverty rates, is astonishing. Critics argue that this prioritization of religious matters over addressing critical societal needs demonstrates a profound disconnect from the actual challenges faced by Oklahomans. The irony is palpable; a state consistently ranking poorly in crucial areas is focusing its efforts on a religious department, instead of focusing on tangible solutions for its residents’ well-being.
Walters’ actions have been described by many as those of a “wannabe cult leader,” displaying a level of self-importance bordering on narcissism. The mandate itself feels less like an educational initiative and more like a calculated move for personal advancement, potentially aiming for a higher position within the national political arena. This suspicion is fueled by comments suggesting Walters is actively seeking a position similar to that held by Betsy DeVos under the Trump administration, a figure known for her involvement in promoting religious ideologies in schools.
The move is viewed by many as a direct affront to the established principle of separation of church and state. Concerns are raised regarding the potential for this mandate to infringe upon the religious freedom of students and families who may not share the religious beliefs promoted in the video or by the new department itself. Publicly funded schools, it is argued, should remain neutral spaces where students from diverse religious backgrounds can feel safe and welcome, without being subjected to coercive religious instruction.
Further fueling the outrage is the fact that the new department will oversee “investigations of abuses to individual religious freedom or displays of patriotism.” This vague language raises alarms about the potential for misuse of power and the chilling effect it might have on free speech within schools. The interpretation of “patriotism” and “religious freedom,” as defined and enforced by this department, is open to subjective interpretation and could potentially lead to discriminatory practices.
The immediate backlash to Walters’ mandate has been substantial. The Oklahoma Attorney General has stated that the superintendent lacks the authority to enforce such a mandate, and numerous school districts have openly defied the order, refusing to show the video to their students. This widespread defiance indicates a significant level of resistance within the state itself, showcasing that the superintendent’s actions do not necessarily represent the views of the majority of Oklahomans. However, the concern remains that smaller, more rural districts might lack the resources or the will to oppose the mandate, potentially leaving their students exposed to unwanted religious indoctrination.
Legal challenges are anticipated, with many predicting a protracted legal battle that could potentially reach the Supreme Court. This possibility highlights the deeper systemic issues at play, suggesting a gradual erosion of the separation of church and state in recent years. The outcome of such a legal challenge will have significant ramifications, setting a precedent for future attempts to introduce religious instruction into public schools nationwide.
Beyond the legal battles, the social impact of Walters’ actions should not be overlooked. The potential for increased division and tension within school communities is a very real concern, potentially leading to further polarization and a breakdown in civil discourse. The mandate’s inherent divisiveness risks fostering an environment of hostility and intolerance, undermining the very principles of inclusivity and respect for diverse perspectives that should be at the heart of any educational institution.
In conclusion, Ryan Walters’ mandate stands as a stark example of the ongoing struggle to maintain the separation of church and state in American public education. It raises profound questions about the role of religion in schools, the power dynamics within the educational system, and the potential for political maneuvering to undermine fundamental constitutional principles. The ongoing resistance to this mandate suggests a widespread rejection of its intentions, but the possibility of legal challenges and the potential for its implementation in less resistant districts leaves the outcome deeply uncertain. The consequences of this decision are far-reaching and will undoubtedly continue to shape the debate on religion and education in the years to come.