Ten Commandments

[kelroy55]

Interesting development.



The Ten Commandments monument must be removed from the grounds of the state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a 7-2 opinion the Supreme Court found the placement of the monument on the grounds of the state Capitol violate Article 2, Section 5, of the Oklahoma Constitution which prohibits the use of public money or property to directly or indirectly benefit a “church denomination or system of religion.”

Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday | News OK

[kelroy55]

Ooops This is also in the politics section so please delete

[Bullbear]

I have no problem with the 10 commandments but I don't think they are appropriately placed. put the monument on private property or a church and focus more on living by them rather than displaying them.

[Midtowner]

Move the statue over to the OCPA building across the street. Problem solved.

[RadicalModerate]

Monument to "The Ten Commandments" removed by Judicial Fiat?
A couple of Xerox Machines, copies of The Ten Commandments, plus a truckload of Scotch Tape could provide a temporary replacement.
And, perhaps help to shore-up the crumbling Capitol Building.
Without being charged with littering.
That, or put a little rainbow over it with an endlessly playing song by Judy Garland.

[king183]

"No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such." Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

I'm not sure how that isn't clear enough to understand that putting a religious system's commandments on public property isn't allowed under the law. Then, I remember the crazies like Kevin Calvey (the guy who threatened to self immolate) and Sally Kern (gays are a bigger threat than Islamic terrorists), who are calling for the justices to be impeached for doing their job, truly aren't intelligent people.

[RadicalModerate]

"No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such." Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

I'm not sure how that isn't clear enough to understand that putting a religious system's commandments on public property isn't allowed under the law. Then, I remember the crazies like Kevin Calvey (the guy who threatened to self immolate) and Sally Kern (gays are a bigger threat than Islamic terrorists), who are calling for the justices to be impeached for doing their job, truly aren't intelligent people.

So . . . simply out of curiosity, what is your personal stance, on the personal ethics, expressed by "The Ten Commandments" and, in the interests of diversity, how does it (your personal stance) compare to . . . say . . . for example . . . Hammurabi's Code?

[kelroy55]

So . . . simply out of curiosity, what is your personal stance, on the personal ethics, expressed by "The Ten Commandments" and, in the interests of diversity, how does it (your personal stance) compare to . . . say . . . for example . . . Hammurabi's Code?

Not trying to answer for king but what does a persons 'personal stance' have to do with following the State Constitution and not having it on state property? If you wanted his personal opinion opinion on Kerns and Calvey I think he made that clear.

[bombermwc]

I'll preface this by saying I'm a Christian, but I fully support the removal of the monument. The political grounds of the government should be free of religious symbols. And if you're going to allow one, then you need to be open to all of them...ie the Satanic monument. That can start a whole competition of who has the biggest/best monument and clutter up the grounds too. There just isn't a place for them at the capital.

That being said, we all have personal convictions regarding our beliefs. We carry those around with us all day and having/not having a monument outside the building doesn't change whether or not a legislator votes with/without those views. There's often a Christian hypocrisy in that Christians (mind you I am one so don't get your feathers all in a ruffle here) want what fits into our own idea of how things should be without consideration of other views. That's part of what makes putting religion into politics so dangerous. We've got plenty examples in history and current day that show why it's such a bad idea and how it inevitably leads to persecution of a group of people.

[Just the facts]

Can I just say that the 10 Commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish. Whether or not you want to believe they were given by God to Moses, or if Moses just made them up, that is up to you, but they were the laws Jews lived under for several thousand years. Now I could see where people of different religious faiths might argue with each other, but why would someone who doesn't believe in God be at all concerned? To that latter group, what is the difference to them between a prayer service and a rain dance?

[kelroy55]

Can I just say that the 10 Commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish. Whether or not you want to believe they were given by God to Moses, or if Moses just made them up, that is up to you, but they were the laws Jews lived under for several thousand years. Now I could see where people of different religious faiths might argue with each other, but why would someone who doesn't believe in God be at all concerned? To that latter group, what is the difference to them between a prayer service and a rain dance?

Shouldn't it concern everybody if it violates the State Constitution, even if you don't care about what it is?

[king183]

Can I just say that the 10 Commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish. Whether or not you want to believe they were given by God to Moses, or if Moses just made them up, that is up to you, but they were the laws Jews lived under for several thousand years. Now I could see where people of different religious faiths might argue with each other, but why would someone who doesn't believe in God be at all concerned? To that latter group, what is the difference to them between a prayer service and a rain dance?

Exactly as Kelroy said. It concerns me because it's a violation of the state constitution. I'm not offended by any religious monument, in and of itself, personally. I am offended, however, when the placement of those monuments and the expressed intent of their placement violates our laws. Violations of the constitution should concern everyone regardless of religious affiliation.

[jerrywall]

I love how the state constitution is inviolate when it's someone folks agree with.

[Midtowner]

Sometimes it just means what it says. This isn't a case of poor draftsmanship leading to a technical wrong answer as occurred in the recent Affordable Care Act case, but rather very express language being applied exactly as it was intended to. I don't understand the need of some people to defend something which is clearly illegal because of some odd fantasy that they are somehow under attack.

[Paseofreak]

Can I just say that the 10 Commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish. Whether or not you want to believe they were given by God to Moses, or if Moses just made them up, that is up to you, but they were the laws Jews lived under for several thousand years. Now I could see where people of different religious faiths might argue with each other, but why would someone who doesn't believe in God be at all concerned? To that latter group, what is the difference to them between a prayer service and a rain dance?

Oh Kerry, this entirely too obvious for you to have even asked the question. I am terribly offended and scared by this monument not because of what it is or says, but by those who intentionally subverted the state constitution by hook and crook with the express intent of making an in your face statement that the laws of Oklahoma should be precisely aligned with their religious beliefs. These ignorant bullies are willing to cast aside a huge portion of the logic and reason in the founding of the United States for the ability to legislate that I act and believe in accordance with their religious beliefs rather than protecting the very mechanisms that allow them to hold and practice their beliefs largely unmolested. It scares and angers the living f&$k out of me.

[hoya]

There's one other thing that bothers me that I haven't seen anyone mention yet. It offends me as a Christian more than anything else people have said.

I saw a picture of the monument itself. It's got a bald eagle, an American flag, and that eyeball pyramid thing on it. It really bothers me to try and "patriot-up" the Ten Commandments. It's revisionist history and it's revisionist religion. I know most people here won't be bothered by it, but it really bothered me.

[Martin]

There's one other thing that bothers me that I haven't seen anyone mention yet. It offends me as a Christian more than anything else people have said.

I saw a picture of the monument itself. It's got a bald eagle, an American flag, and that eyeball pyramid thing on it. It really bothers me to try and "patriot-up" the Ten Commandments. It's revisionist history and it's revisionist religion. I know most people here won't be bothered by it, but it really bothered me.

wait... so you're saying that the ten commandments wasn't etched by lightning drawn out of the sky by the key on ben franklin's kite, flown down from the green mountains in the clutches of a bald eagle, delivered into the hands of our prophet and savior george washington?

blasphemy. -M

[onthestrip]

There's one other thing that bothers me that I haven't seen anyone mention yet. It offends me as a Christian more than anything else people have said.

I saw a picture of the monument itself. It's got a bald eagle, an American flag, and that eyeball pyramid thing on it. It really bothers me to try and "patriot-up" the Ten Commandments. It's revisionist history and it's revisionist religion. I know most people here won't be bothered by it, but it really bothered me.

Exactly. The chest thumping Christian legislators that thought it was necessary to erect this monument only cheapened the religious significance of the 10 commandments when they say its only historical. For them to claim its only historic law and not religious would be pretty offensive to all Christians, I would imagine.

[Just the facts]

So would anyone be equally as upset if it was Hammurabi's code on display? It was religious - just not Jewish or Christian. Just because something appears in the Bible doesn't make it a religious symbol. What about Egyptian artifacts on display all over the place? Anything to do with Pharos are by definition religious - just not Jewish or Christian.

[bchris02]

So would anyone be equally as upset if it was Hammurabi's code on display? It was religious - just not Jewish or Christian. Just because something appears in the Bible doesn't make it a religious symbol. What about Egyptian artifacts on display all over the place? Anything to do with Pharos are by definition religious - just not Jewish or Christian.

I think the issue of whether or not its offensive depends on the intent of the monument. Egyptian monuments are just that - historical monuments and are not intended to promote a religious or political agenda in the current day. Even some of the Judeo-Christian monuments in this country fall into that category. The Ten Commandments monument in Oklahoma isn't historical like the monuments in some other states. It was put up recently with the sole intention of getting under the skin of secular progressives. Also, as hoyasooner stated, having the bald eagle and the American flag on the monument only further proves the fact that its true intent is to promote the Republican dream of a Christian America. Despite the fact it is unconstitutional, I personally think this specific monument was in poor taste.

[hoya]

So would anyone be equally as upset if it was Hammurabi's code on display? It was religious - just not Jewish or Christian. Just because something appears in the Bible doesn't make it a religious symbol. What about Egyptian artifacts on display all over the place? Anything to do with Pharos are by definition religious - just not Jewish or Christian.

It depends, of course, on why it is being displayed. The AICCM is going to have items of some religious significance there, if it ever gets completed. If a state-run museum ever managed to get some historical Christian artifact, it would be fine to create an exhibit around it. I am pretty sure OU has a Gutenburg Bible in its library -- I'd bet nobody just gave that to them. However it's pretty clear that the state has religious-neutral reasons for getting and displaying these items. That's clearly not the case here.

[Martin]

So would anyone be equally as upset if it was Hammurabi's code on display? It was religious - just not Jewish or Christian. Just because something appears in the Bible doesn't make it a religious symbol. What about Egyptian artifacts on display all over the place? Anything to do with Pharos are by definition religious - just not Jewish or Christian.

hammurabi, moses (holding the commandments), solomon, and muhammad among others are carved into the us supreme court building commemorating them as lawgivers. in the historical context of delivering codified law, i don't think any of those religious figures are inappropriate on government grounds. if somebody wanted to erect a monument to hammurabi as a means of honoring or promoting babylonian religion, i'd have the same reservations with it on the same grounds that i have with the oklahoma capitol's ten commandments display. -M

[Midtowner]

In this case, I think the fact that the ONLY people who are outraged about this are Christians tells you exactly what this monument was--a monument to advance a Christianist agenda and to promote Christianity. There are no Jews or Muslims or lawyers who think this is a monument about law who are similarly decrying the fact that they "no longer have rights anymore" (to quote one slightly right of center relative) and that we need to start impeaching justices and repealing constitutional articles.

[Jeepnokc]

Oh Kerry, this entirely too obvious for you to have even asked the question. I am terribly offended and scared by this monument not because of what it is or says, but by those who intentionally subverted the state constitution by hook and crook with the express intent of making an in your face statement that the laws of Oklahoma should be precisely aligned with their religious beliefs. These ignorant bullies are willing to cast aside a huge portion of the logic and reason in the founding of the United States for the ability to legislate that I act and believe in accordance with their religious beliefs rather than protecting the very mechanisms that allow them to hold and practice their beliefs largely unmolested. It scares and angers the living f&$k out of me.

I agree with this whole heartedly and add that it is even more offensive that it was an elected official who paid for it and supports it. The oath of office starts with:

I, __________________________________________________ ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma,

[Just the facts]

In this case, I think the fact that the ONLY people who are outraged about this are Christians tells you exactly what this monument was--a monument to advance a Christianist agenda and to promote Christianity. There are no Jews or Muslims or lawyers who think this is a monument about law who are similarly decrying the fact that they "no longer have rights anymore" (to quote one slightly right of center relative) and that we need to start impeaching justices and repealing constitutional articles.

How can non-Christian laws promote Christianity? I will agree with bchris02 on this one item - the display was poorly done and out of place, both in location and style - and should have been rejected on those merits alone.