Rep. Valarie Hodges, a Republican who represents East Baton Rouge and Livingston, now says she wishes she hadn’t voted for the Jindal voucher bill.

“I actually support funding for teaching the fundamentals of America’s Founding Fathers’ religion, which is Christianity, in public schools or private schools,” Hodges told the Livingston Parish News.

“I liked the idea of giving parents the option of sending their children to a public school or a Christian school,” Hodges added.

The newspaper reported that she “mistakenly assumed that ‘religious’ meant ‘Christian.’"

“Unfortunately it will not be limited to the Founders’ religion,” Hodges told the News. “We need to insure that it does not open the door to fund radical Islam schools. There are a thousand Muslim schools that have sprung up recently. I do not support using public funds for teaching Islam anywhere here in Louisiana.”

That depends on whether that view can get more votes. For now, it's a ways away, only Thomas and Gorsuch expressed that opinion.

Yeah, I'm sure that as you start to see funds go to causes that are non-Christian or are Christian institutions that are not majoritarian in nature, you'll see more attempts in trying weasel in the idea that they really mean religious protections for the privileged.

In that vein, it's also important to note that in the mid 20th century, religious liberty was seen as a big time left wing cause. Most of the major Religion Clause cases featured minority groups like Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists as the plaintiffs. When the Court decided the major Employment Division v. Smith case (one that I think was dead on correct), it was seen at the time as a right wing decision, with the lefties like Brennan and Marshall dissenting. There was a brief moment in the early 90s after that case when there was a united cause for more "religious freedom"--of which led to the bad RFRA being passed--but then, as majoritarian Christian groups wanted to flex their muscle more, the ideological priors completely flipped.

Thanks for that, and it makes sense. I'm just of the mind that if it's private then keep it private. If you need a subsidy to attend a school, then that school's community should fund your scholarship.

I also want to add that while I think the ruling might be a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, it's pretty easy to imagine this being abused by state legislators as they find creative ways to support private religious schools with supposedly religiously-neutral wording even while the intent and likely outcomes are obvious to everybody.