Speaker 1: Oklahoma in a land that time forgot. Oh well, time
Speaker 1: seems to have moved on faster than Oklahoma does. Here,
Speaker 1: it wasn't yet twenty sixteen when Oklahoma residents said we
Speaker 1: would like to not be staying in the garden of
Speaker 1: Eden or at the divine creations. These people are saying,
Speaker 1: and we would rather not be funding the Christianity. So
Speaker 1: what are they doing this time? They're trying again, only
Speaker 1: they're trying to go back even further. Oklahoma once again
Speaker 1: doing Christianity the only way that it can do Christianity,
Speaker 1: and that is sneakily and through the back door. This
Speaker 1: is an article all about how Oklahoma legislators are trying
Speaker 1: to push through indirect funding of religious buildings. This will
Speaker 1: primarily be Christian buildings, and hemat Matter says it better
Speaker 1: than us all on his friendly atheist blog from the
Speaker 1: twenty second of January, doesn't he tell on? Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: he definitely did this.
Speaker 2: Okay, So for those people that don't know what the
Speaker 2: how we're talking about. So there is a States senator
Speaker 2: that really, really, really really loves his Bible. He loves
Speaker 2: it so much and he wants all the kids to
Speaker 2: also love his Bible.
Speaker 1: As much as he loves it.
Speaker 2: And he wants to take money away from public education
Speaker 2: and funded into private schools. And this way there will
Speaker 2: be religious teachings within these schools. That's not why we
Speaker 2: have a seculary government. And he's being super steaky about
Speaker 2: it because he wants there wasn't a There was a
Speaker 2: clause in the state of the Oklahoma Amendment that says
Speaker 2: that you could not use public funds for private or
Speaker 2: private education. If you want to go take direct direct
Speaker 2: or in direct. Yes, it was direct and.
Speaker 1: Direct and in direct. Well, this lunatic wants to do
Speaker 1: and I call him a lunatic here. There is nobody
Speaker 1: caninology that is desired here, but he wants to remove
Speaker 1: bedlam over here. But that's Oklahoma for you. Anyway. What
Speaker 1: we have here is we have a man who doesn't
Speaker 1: understand how things were. He wants to remove the words
Speaker 1: indirect from the clause that stopped him from getting a
Speaker 1: Catholic charter school. That's the long and the short of
Speaker 1: it here. And Oklahoma is about as red as the
Speaker 1: top that Aaron is wearing. So thinking of this and
Speaker 1: thinking that voters in gloom they must be all gung
Speaker 1: home for this, Yes, gung ho, you'd say, well, actually no.
Speaker 1: They told him to sod off last time in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: which was quite refreshing. At the height of you know,
Speaker 1: the forty fifth president being elected and the first viable
Speaker 1: female candidate getting defeated and his party getting control of
Speaker 1: the House and Senate. Nationally, voters in Oklahoma went, nah,
Speaker 1: we don't want thisubbish.
Speaker 3: Fifty seven forty three percent.
Speaker 1: It was small. It was twelve points. It's two points.
Speaker 3: That's that's pretty big all things considered, I would I
Speaker 3: would say that's a pretty big disparity.
Speaker 1: So the question for the payer of you here, if
Speaker 1: you were living in Oklahoma, Aaron, what would you be doing.
Speaker 3: If I live in Oklahoma, I would be calling up
Speaker 3: my representatives and say, knock it off this bill right now. Unfortunately,
Speaker 3: this bill is only in committee, so it hasn't really
Speaker 3: made it to the floor for open debate and actual passage.
Speaker 3: But if if I was in Oklahoma, I would be
Speaker 3: calling up my representatives and say this. I like the
Speaker 3: car constitution the way it is. I like that our
Speaker 3: constitution says that we cannot fund churches, either directly or indirectly.
Speaker 3: This is a good thing. So please make sure that
Speaker 3: this does not leave committee if at all possible, and
Speaker 3: if it does, it should be soundly defeated. We do
Speaker 3: not want religion in our government because what religion does
Speaker 3: is religion makes thought, thinking and believing things crimes. Right,
Speaker 3: one of the Ten commandments makes thinking certain things of crime.
Speaker 1: And that's why you do not cover thy neighbors ass
Speaker 1: that's right, depending on my neighbors asses, that shall not
Speaker 1: cover thy neighbors. I feel that's why I am against religion.
Speaker 3: So I'm against religion in our government because of the
Speaker 3: thought crime.
Speaker 1: Do you cover thy neighbors ass?
Speaker 3: It depends on the ass.
Speaker 1: And how you're coverting your time assuming So hello, if
Speaker 1: you a wonderful resident of Oklahoma, what would you be doing?
Speaker 1: I we're not talking like you know, the standard staff
Speaker 1: writing letters phony people. What would you be doing personally
Speaker 1: in this context?
Speaker 2: So, well, I'd be I'd be streaming into a pillow.
Speaker 2: But I already do that anyways at all times, but
Speaker 2: I would there would not Just I'm I like to
Speaker 2: make stinks, So when I see ship like this, I
Speaker 2: tend to want to rally other people and make that
Speaker 2: make stinks. Because if you if they voted back in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen that they were like, no ah, we like this,
Speaker 2: we like this separation of church and state. I'd be like, hey,
Speaker 2: remember we did this.
Speaker 1: Let's do it again. We're going to do it again.
Speaker 2: Irish to tell people like, hey, keep an eye on this, motherfucker.
Speaker 1: If this is very Irish. This does. As an Irish
Speaker 1: citizen myself, I remember there was this thing called the
Speaker 1: Treaty of Lisbon in two thousand and eight and two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine. We also had it with the Mars
Speaker 1: Strict Treaty and the and the Treaty of Nice as well.
Speaker 1: So us in Ireland we we have to vote on
Speaker 1: a lot of things to change our constitution. And they went, nah,
Speaker 1: we don't really want this treaty. So what do they do?
Speaker 1: Eighteen months later they went, do it again, please give
Speaker 1: us the right answer. That's basically what they did. In
Speaker 1: two thousand and we went back to the post two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine, In two thousand and four, we went
Speaker 1: back to the public of two thousand and five, and
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety one we went back to the policies.
Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety two, because you know, we've got given
Speaker 1: the wrong answer, So, here are some concessions to you
Speaker 1: sweeten the deal. Blah blah blah. But that kind of
Speaker 1: feels how it is here you go, your the wrong
Speaker 1: answer the first time, give us a different answer this time.
Speaker 1: And where does that actually stop? And does this, in
Speaker 1: your opinion, make a fart of the believability of the
Speaker 1: sensibilities and structures of the state law itself?
Speaker 3: Aaron, Well, it's just it's I'm not sure the law
Speaker 3: is what we wanted to be and what we make it. Right,
Speaker 3: we pass laws and we enforce laws, and so the
Speaker 3: laws can be whatever we decide. It's all made up, right.
Speaker 3: The laws get to be what we want them to be.
Speaker 3: And it's something the people of Voklahoma. Do they want
Speaker 3: this to be the law? Do they want their public money,
Speaker 3: their taxes, to go indirectly towards towards churches?
Speaker 1: And what does that actually mean? When you hear that?
Speaker 1: What do you immediately think?
Speaker 3: I have no idea what he means. To be honest,
Speaker 3: the oracle the article says indirectly means they can fund buildings,
Speaker 3: or it's kind of vague because the constitution right now
Speaker 3: says directly or indirectly, And he wants to amend it
Speaker 3: to take out the word indirectly, so you can indirectly
Speaker 3: help a church. So maybe it's funny.
Speaker 1: It means is so what this means is, let's say Helen,
Speaker 1: where's a dog collar? And she has her congregation at
Speaker 1: the Church of Helen every week. Why I ask, the
Speaker 1: self appointed fund giver of Oklahoma cannot give dog collar
Speaker 1: wearing Helen any money. But Aaron works for an organization
Speaker 1: that is not a religious organization, but they work out
Speaker 1: of the same building that Helen does. So I give
Speaker 1: money to Aaron, and Aaron then gives the money to Helen.
Speaker 1: That's how you get round the directness of this. So
Speaker 1: Aaron runs his nice community group in the back rooms
Speaker 1: of the church, and Helen charges a fee for that.
Speaker 1: That's indirect funding, and that's not allowed. You might think, well,
Speaker 1: what's the harm in that? What's the problem with that.
Speaker 1: Here's the problem with that. It's because it gives an
Speaker 1: unfair promotion to organizations to take the piss. Oh you're
Speaker 1: a builder that wants to build on this site, what
Speaker 1: do you want to do? I want to build the
Speaker 1: community center. Oh, how wonderful for you. Every Sunday we're
Speaker 1: going to fill it up with a load of people
Speaker 1: and somebody wearing a dog collar to talk from this
Speaker 1: book as well. Oh that's wonderful. You can do that
Speaker 1: because of the community funding aspects that we're doing. That's
Speaker 1: indirect funding. But you've just built a church with it.
Speaker 1: And this is the idiocy of what we're doing here.
Speaker 1: The law is written in the Constitution of Oklahoma in
Speaker 1: a very specific way to stop us starting around here,
Speaker 1: stop off the series because people, unless you nail down
Speaker 1: the jelly, and that's what you're doing here, You're nailing
Speaker 1: down the jelly here, someone's going to find a way
Speaker 1: to drive a coach horses through and raise the America's
Speaker 1: Cup and you can't have that. So what we have
Speaker 1: to say to people like this website quite loudly, is
Speaker 1: bogger off.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so this this isn't It seems like the person
Speaker 3: that's writting this seems to think that the only religion
Speaker 3: is Christianity, right, like he What would this person feel
Speaker 3: if a religion he doesn't agree with starts to get money?
Speaker 3: Are they going to do? Are they going to want that?
Speaker 1: And then cut your I'll drag you back here to
Speaker 1: articles we've done before on the Church of Satanism, the
Speaker 1: Church of Satanism apply for some indirect funding. Do you
Speaker 1: think that the man sponsoring this would go yes, would
Speaker 1: happily give them some money. No?
Speaker 3: I accluely think that. That's my point, right, That's my
Speaker 3: point is if we gave money to the Church of
Speaker 3: the the Church of Satan, the Satanic temple sorry, or
Speaker 3: a mosque or a synagogue or any of that nature,
Speaker 3: what would his reaction be would he still would he
Speaker 3: agree with that or not? I have a tendency to
Speaker 3: think that what he really wants to do is just
Speaker 3: fund Christian things, and that's not Christian he's going to
Speaker 3: be against because that's usually what people like this think.
Speaker 3: And that's the whole reason. And it doesn't have to
Speaker 3: do with non Christian religions. It can also be different
Speaker 3: sex within Christianity. What happens when a sex you don't
Speaker 3: agree with in Christianity wants to get money, you still
Speaker 3: want to give them money.
Speaker 1: That's the whole reason.
Speaker 3: That's one of the reasons where we try to keep
Speaker 3: religion out of our government and keep our government secular
Speaker 3: is so we don't have these stupid pissing matches between
Speaker 3: dogmas and religions and beliefs.
Speaker 1: So getting down to brass tax here. Hello, Yes, what's
Speaker 1: the motivation behind it? Not superficial keypants more wart, what's
Speaker 1: the actual motivation behind this you thing?
Speaker 2: It's Christian national shit as it always is. It is
Speaker 2: to force the state to adhere to THEO someone that
Speaker 2: wants a theocracy. He so, I am not a miss
Speaker 2: of this gentleman's name, Senator Dan Dana Prido. Just everybody tape,
Speaker 2: just remember that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Priato, I don't care, do I care? I pronounced
Speaker 1: it correctly now? I E t O p r I
Speaker 1: E t O. We're not. We're not being ignorant here
Speaker 1: in any way, shape or form. We're just struggling with
Speaker 1: the pronunciation because we don't know the gentleman's ethnicity. And
Speaker 1: as a result of that, there are many ways that
Speaker 1: you could pronounce this name.
Speaker 2: I pronounce things phonetically. That's how I read them. So
Speaker 2: that's me anyway, regardless of my pronunciation of this gentleman's name.
Speaker 2: He he's not thinking of the broader context as like
Speaker 2: Aaron brought up about like other religions do they get
Speaker 2: the same funding? He wants his special book and because
Speaker 2: he really really loves this guy dad, and he wants
Speaker 2: other people to really love his guy Daddy. And he
Speaker 2: knows that in doctrination works. And I find it really
Speaker 2: funny that he has to do like this, like sneaky
Speaker 2: sneaky stuff. When aren't you, like, as a Christian is
Speaker 2: supposed to be honest, can't you just be transparent about
Speaker 2: like what the hell you're doing? No, you can't, because
Speaker 2: if he directly said to you know, the voting populace
Speaker 2: that in drag means I want to take that is
Speaker 2: south so I can go around the back way and
Speaker 2: make sure money's going to private schools.
Speaker 1: Here's the next question for you. Do you think that
Speaker 1: there's a viable argument to be made that if you
Speaker 1: were to change this, it would render the whole thing
Speaker 1: moot because you could technically include in your definition of
Speaker 1: religion those people who are irreligious, those who are anti religious,
Speaker 1: and dare I say, people like ourselves who have no
Speaker 1: religion whatsoever, because the broad definition of a religion has
Speaker 1: to include those who don't ascribe to that religion in
Speaker 1: any way, shape or form, or any religion for that matter.
Speaker 1: So Aaron Helen, how do you see the end point
Speaker 1: of this If this is to go forwards and it
Speaker 1: is just church after church after church, but then some
Speaker 1: bright spark a few years later goes right, means that
Speaker 1: we can fund anything we like.
Speaker 3: Well, I think it's I think it's it's troubling because
Speaker 3: it starts a slippery slope of funny religion. So first
Speaker 3: that the alteration could be indirect, and then the next
Speaker 3: alteration is direct, right.
Speaker 4: And then and then the next alteration is only only
Speaker 4: and then who's gonna who's gonna win whoever, whatever religion
Speaker 4: is in the majority, and then whatever religion is, the
Speaker 4: majority is gonna have that power and they're not gonna
Speaker 4: let go of that power.
Speaker 3: Power given is really hard to take away. And so
Speaker 3: that's that's where my worry is of this. This passes
Speaker 3: is gonna it's just gonna give more power to the
Speaker 3: already majority religion in that state, and other people that
Speaker 3: don't have that power, that aren't part of that religion, Atheists, uh, made,
Speaker 3: the members of the Satanic Temple, uh, Muslims and other
Speaker 3: religions they're they're not gonna have any say anymore because
Speaker 3: the money talks and whoever's got the most power and
Speaker 3: the most representation in the government is going to is
Speaker 3: gonna win.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I'm a clined degree and I'm also concerned
Speaker 2: that because it's indirect, I want and my concern is
Speaker 2: that if we're if the state is mostly Christian, that
Speaker 2: the indirect funding, who's going to oversee where the money
Speaker 2: is going and it is going to be honest?
Speaker 1: Because that's another.
Speaker 2: Thing we have to consider too, because if people have
Speaker 2: motivations where they don't want, like the Satanic temple or
Speaker 2: a Jewish synagogue or whatever, to get certain funding, they
Speaker 2: can redirect it, or they cannot get a certain percentage.
Speaker 1: They can cook books.
Speaker 2: So like as Aaron said, like there's a slippery slope
Speaker 2: here that I would like because this is direct and indirect,
Speaker 2: that is a clear distinction to say no. And if
Speaker 2: we start you know, changing, and I know the laws
Speaker 2: are all up, I understand that, but I do under
Speaker 2: the reason why we have the establishments clause is so
Speaker 2: the slight stuff like this does not happen. But the
Speaker 2: thing is, though, is that it's now happening, you know,
Speaker 2: more and more. That's what we keep talking about on
Speaker 2: this damn show and it's just one of those things
Speaker 2: that and I. But it's also a little bit frustrating
Speaker 2: is the fact that he preto prido.
Speaker 1: Whatever, the senator, the state senator, the senator.
Speaker 2: He's kind of banking on the members of you know,
Speaker 2: his constituents to not know what direct and indirect means
Speaker 2: when it comes to what it comes to funding.
Speaker 1: So here's a question, flip this on its head. Why
Speaker 1: should we stop this? Why should we It's free speech.
Speaker 1: You can believe what you want to believe. Money and
Speaker 1: the way it is distributed is a form of free speech.
Speaker 1: Why is this such a bad thing?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't think. I think there should be regulation
Speaker 3: over a money, how much it gets spent, where it
Speaker 3: gets spent, when it comes to the government and things
Speaker 3: of that nature. Because we are seeing right now that
Speaker 3: whoever has the most money wins, and whoever has the
Speaker 3: most money wins. That means you've got to regulate where
Speaker 3: that money gets spent. And if does that makes sense?
Speaker 1: Really no, I don't really know. It doesn't make any
Speaker 1: sense to me.
Speaker 2: The reason why I don't want this to happen because
Speaker 2: it's schools. That's my issue, because I don't like I
Speaker 2: don't if I'm sending if I was living in Oklahoma, Okay,
Speaker 2: and I'm sending my child school and the charter school
Speaker 2: gets more funding than the public school because that indirect
Speaker 2: funding has a preference for the religious charter school.
Speaker 1: That's a problem.
Speaker 2: And that's my issue because if we're going to start
Speaker 2: distributing funds and we're going to start like doing sort
Speaker 2: of like a ranking, I would prefer that the school
Speaker 2: that's teaching the about a super special book and his
Speaker 2: super special sky Daddy and he wants other kids to
Speaker 2: learn about a super special sky day. That's fine, but
Speaker 2: then you do it privately.
Speaker 1: I went to Catholic school.
Speaker 2: My parents pay for me to go Clatter school when.
Speaker 1: I was a child.
Speaker 2: That was fine. Did I enjoy it? No, it was terrible.
Speaker 1: I can tell you stories.
Speaker 2: But I got a good Friday off, like we got
Speaker 2: religious holidays off. That was cool. So I have this
Speaker 2: just leads to a whole bunch of problems. And this
Speaker 2: is just stuff that I'm just like, stuff that's just
Speaker 2: popping into my brain over like if you think about
Speaker 2: it for more than two seconds.
Speaker 1: So, Oklahoma nationally ranked number forty nine in education in
Speaker 1: the United States. Oklahoma one of the most Christian places
Speaker 1: in America. Is this just free speech and you money
Speaker 1: being free speech or is this an absolute affront Establishment clause.
Speaker 1: If you were in Oklahoma, what would you be doing?
Speaker 1: Let us know below right now