Debate continues over declaring 'Christ is King' in Oklahoma
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — The debate continues over the 'Christ is King' resolution passed by the Oklahoma House of Representatives.
On Wednesday, those against the resolution held a news conference saying they believe in religious freedom for all Oklahomans.
'Declaring one's God king over another person's God isn't just exclusionary, it's an attack on one's religious freedom,' said Rep. Mickey Dollens, D-Oklahoma City.
Days before Easter, the House passed a resolution declaring that 'Christ is King' in Oklahoma.
'This has nothing to do with anti-religion. This is about pro-Constitution,' Dollens said.
Dollens is one of several voicing concern. He believes it violates the separation of church and state.
However Senator Shane Jett, R-Shawnee, is a co-author of the resolution says that's not what it is.
'It's just a very warm, inspirational way to honor Christ and to recognize his role and the foundation of the nation and the important role that he plays in the hearts of Oklahomans all over,' said Jett.
He says it's just a proclamation, but others believe it lays the groundwork of a much broader agenda.
'This narrative primes the public to accept future laws that aren't just symbolic, but rather laws that actually take away rights and laws that actually discriminate and do harm to others,' said Dollens.
Oklahoma House passes 'Christ is King' resolution
Dollens gave some examples during the news conference.
'For example, this building passed the first religious charter school in the United States. We use tax dollars to purchase Trump Bibles for kids classrooms. We have Bible infused grade school curriculum,' said Rep. Dollens.
Jett added that he believes there's a misconception with the separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution.
'It is saying the United States is not going to have a church that is ordered by the state, but it doesn't say that you can't exercise religion. In fact, the opposite is true,' said Rep. Jett.
Other Republican lawmakers agree.
'To say that God has no place in the American government is foolishness. You need to go back and look at those papers, you need to go back and look at your history, learn your history,' said Representative JJ Humphrey, R-Lane.
On Thursday when the resolution was voted on, there was around two hours of debate. Lawmakers from both parties say that was too long.
'Is that something that we should be wasting our government money on? I don't think so and should we see a lot more important items come up for discussion in front of the people, absolutely, I think, but I will tell you that there's no more important item than whether Christ is king,' said Rep. Humphrey.
The resolution is now in the Senate.
There's been attempts to pass similar resolutions in North Dakota and in Montana, but both have failed.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.
Let's just get this out of the way: The birth rate is a red herring. It's been a common refrain that if the Trump administration and congressional leadership truly wanted to make it easier for families in America to grow and thrive, they would turn to policies like national paid leave, affordable child care, maternal health care and home and community-based services for our aging and disabled loved ones. They would be investing in early education and the caregiving workforce. They would be supporting commonsense accommodations like remote work. They would be growing social safety nets. But they've done none of that. Their response to child care is to send in grandma. They've said next to nothing about paid leave. What they apparently have suggested instead is both hilarious and dystopian. A medal for women with six or more children? Classes on your own menstrual cycle? Coupons for minivans? And instead of investing and building for the future, they're slashing and burning. From fertility and maternal health programs, to food and farm assistance, to Medicaid and Social Security, they're going after all the powerful things our country has built to sustain life. Elon Musk says the birth rate crisis is about the disappearance of civilization. I'd say he's already destroying its foundations. The real crisis is one of care. As baby boomers age, more and more of us are taking care of our parents and children all at the same time, with little help, and drowning financially and emotionally. No federal paid leave, in many counties without access to child care. The answer to the real crisis is not what we can gut and burn and take away from people, but what we can give them, the world we can create. My organization, Paid Leave for All, is asking people to envision their lives if they had the guarantee of paid family and medical leave ‒ if they knew no matter where they worked and the joy or loss they faced, they could maintain their life and their livelihood. Imagine the businesses and ventures that might be started, the families that could be sustained, the moments we wouldn't miss. Imagine the peace of mind, the paychecks kept, the lives saved. Opinion: Trump's $5,000 'baby bonus' isn't what new moms like me need What Musk, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and beyond are suggesting isn't about any of that ‒ it's not about affording working families the security and dignity of being able to take care of themselves and each other. It's simply code for hatred and bigotry, driven less by concern for families than by a desire to preserve a demographic majority. But the good news? They're still at odds with supermajorities of Americans. They're overplaying their hand, ignoring the desperate real needs of working families and missing a political opportunity. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson went to great lengths to try to kill a bipartisan measure to simply allow new parents in Congress to vote by proxy ‒ a pro-family protocol that would cost nothing. A lot of people had never heard of it, but message testing found that when you told people even a little bit about it and Johnson's unprecedented moves to kill it, their support for the measure jumped up to 23 points. This was true across every demographic group tested, across gender, race, age and ideology. What's more, their support for broader federal policies like paid family and medical leave shot up as well. Your Turn: Are you planning to have children? Why or why not? Here's what USA TODAY readers told us. | Opinion Forum In polling done in battleground states just before the 2024 election, there was record-high support for paid leave across party lines and walks of life, however you sliced it. That included 90% of independents, 96% of suburban women and 97% of low turnout Democrats. Commentary and post-election analyses have pointed to the family policies like paid leave and affordable care that would have offered tangible improvements in people's daily lives and stress, and could have changed the political landscape and outcomes. 'We didn't deliver what people wanted ‒ help with child care, help with elder care, more security in their lives,' said Ron Klain, a former chief of staff for Joe Biden. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. And that's the task ahead ‒ not just to respond to dangerous and very real threats to our families and communities, but to also counter with a vision of how much better our lives could be, and a plan to achieve it. To outline the damage they're doing to people's wallets and freedoms, and opportunities, and then to contrast with the policies that enable us to hold onto jobs and care for our own families. The desire to succeed in life, to be able to afford one, to be able to support your loved ones, is universal. It's not a liberal fantasy, it's an idea of strength and dignity. Making more babies by threat, faux incentives or even force is not a goal or a solution. But the idea of supporting families and allowing all of us to live healthier and richer lives is one we should be restoring front and center, and a conversation we should be having. This is the project facing all of us who actually care about the survival of civilization. Dawn Huckelbridge is the founding director of Paid Leave for All. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Musk is wrong: Birth rate isn't the crisis. Child care is | Opinion
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk goes scorched earth: Trump will cause recession, implies he should be impeached
Elon Musk and Donald Trump's alliance continues to publicly implode, with the world's richest man taking aim at the president's signature economic policy — tariffs — and implying he should be removed from office. 'The Trump tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year,' Musk wrote on X Thursday afternoon. It marks Musk's biggest criticism yet of one of Trump's most beloved policies. Musk also took aim at one of the president's most-hated political maneuvers: impeachment. Responding to another post about who would win in a fight between Musk and Trump — which also calls for Trump to be impeached and for Vice President JD Vance to replace him — Musk simply responded: 'Yes.' Trump was impeached twice by a Democratic-controlled House during his first term, but was acquitted both times by the Senate. Musk — who's been launching back and forth attacks with Trump all day Thursday — has never been a big fan of Trump's sweeping tariff plans, and publicly ridiculed Peter Navarro, one of the public faces of Trump's trade war, while he was still a government employee. The tariffs are set to have huge implications for Musk's car company Tesla, because of the rising costs of materials and manufacturing abroad. The car company's stocks took a dive following the tariff announcements, and were also impacted by Musk's growing absence from the company during his time as Trump's special adviser while leading the Department of Government Efficiency. That said, Musk has called Tesla the 'least affected' car company from the tariffs, due to supply chains being split between Europe, China and North America. But the Tesla CEO hasn't shied away from bashing Trump's trade advisers in the past — even labeling Navarro a 'moron.' In addition to railing against the tariffs, Musk has spent the last three days rallying against the administration's "big beautiful bill," which he called "disgusting" and "pork-filled" in a flood of X posts — urging Senate Republicans to reject the mega-funding legislation. Trump hit back early Thursday, saying he was 'disappointed' by Musk's comments. 'Elon and I had a great relationship,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'I don't know if we will anymore.' Upon return to their respective social media sites, the two turned up the heat. What has since ensued has been a barrage of X posts from the billionaire and corresponding Truth Social posts from the president that have widened a chasm between the two — who just last Friday stood side by side at the Oval Office on Musk's last day in the White House, as Trump thanked him for his service. Now, Trump said Musk has a case of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome,' a taunt usually reserved for his political opponents. He's also floating ending all of Musk's federal government contracts including with his company SpaceX — one of NASA's biggest contractors. The attacks escalated when Musk suggested that Trump would not have won the 2024 election without his help, and that Republicans would have been outnumbered in Congress. 'Such ingratitude,' Musk wrote on X, referencing the hundreds of millions he poured into Trump's and other GOP campaigns. Musk had a poll running at the top of his X feed asking people about forming a third party. He had suggested on Tuesday, when he took his first big shot at the Republican megabill, that he could fund campaigns to primary and potentially unseat Republicans that backed the legislation. The SpaceX founder then dropped what he described as the 'really big bomb.' Musk suggested that Trump's name appears in records of the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and said the records 'have not been made public' to conceal that fact. In February, the Department of Justice released what it called the 'first phase' of documents related to the Epstein investigation, which has been a fixation of some of the president's supporters. It has long been public that Trump — along with other prominent figures, like Bill Clinton — are referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein. But Trump is not accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein. Trump has tied Musk's criticism of the 'big beautiful bill' to the looming end of a tax credit for electric vehicles, which will also deal a blow to Tesla. 'Suddenly he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out we're going to cut the EV mandate that's billions and billions of dollars,' Trump said Thursday. Musk denied Trump's framing, reaffirming his larger criticism of the bill's spending and the potential for it to add trillions to the national deficit over the next 10 years. The former DOGE adviser also shut down the idea that he was familiar with the 'inner workings' of the bill from his time in the White House, calling that a lie.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially." Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
