The Supreme Court of the United States has opined that a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to three men who were Baptists is a basis for American jurisprudence. Use of the letter describing a "separation of church and state" is case law in the United States. That phrase is not written in the Constitution. Oklahoman legislators who style themselves as Christians in society could try to set up honeyed cases that hook the loops of existing jurisprudence in court cases that explore the logical and moral constraint propagation of American courts. As a body of two bodies, they don't seek such a path to freeing America from the extant tyranny of Thomas Jefferson's Danbury letter over the mind of man. Instead of fighting consequential cases like McGirt by using the state legislature to bulwark the statehood of Oklahoma, the legally ineffective legislature rebels against the law in the United States as applied by the incorporation of the First Amendment. Lawyers in Oklahoma are generally inept and frequently accustomed to courts that are bad for trust in government. Oklahoma has become pricey makeup densely applied to deep boils upon an erstwhile sonship of liberty. Other states give their peoples better government. Thomas Jefferson wrote about Jesus in a way that was malformed in reason and incoherent in its essential nature in a letter to William Short dated August 4, 1820, but the Supreme Court does not appear to have applied that letter explicitly in its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state lets the federal government inhibit its lawful ability to enforce laws against child sexual abuse, and the legos in the legislature insult God by being unholy and setting aside Matthew 5:17 as a guideline for how the Son of God was as a Jew with the Jews: a fulfiller of law and prophecy. O, redness! How you desecrate your food!
The legislature of Oklahoma does not adequately consider law as its primary area of professional responsibility. Breaking the law in the United States by passing an intellectually underformed resolution about elves or Jesus or turkey is not a religious honor toward God. It is better to destroy the bad religions, and set ablaze the good one, too, in the public forum that is the Oklahoma legislature, than to burn incense for God and Mammon equally. If the legislature were to break the law in a better way, one that sets the state up to win battles in the Supreme Court, perhaps they could honor God by breaking the law in a way that establishes precedent: litigation of contested action. Oklahoma is a fat cat state. The cat sits around and waits for financial inflows based on petroleum, mineral resources, government injection of monies from tax revenue, and inflow of business competency from non-Oklahoma-based companies. We have Hobby Lobby, too, and that is not a bad thing. The problem is that the legislature principally serves nobody and then high-fives itself for wisps of bicameral nothing. That is their practice in general and in truth.
Mardel is nice, too.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947):
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 98 U. S. 164.