Posted on 07/27/2015 3:42:49 PM PDT by GoneSalt
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has rejected a last ditch attempt by the state to keep a Ten Commandments monument next to the Oklahoma Capitol.
The court ordered it removed, and on Monday denied a request from the state to reconsider that order.
The monument must be removed because it violates a section of the Oklahoma Constitution prohibiting state property from being used to further religions, the court said.
"Obviously we're pleased with the decision," said Brady Henderson, legal director for ACLU Oklahoma. "The whole case is controversial, but something that is undeniable is that the court is getting this right. The court is following the law."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsok.com ...
The point is:
Moses and The Ten Commandments appear in multiple prominent locations on the U.S. Supreme Court building. This is not a furtherance of religions, rather it is an acknowledgement of the foundation of our society and jurisprudence.
Until recently moving to the Oklahoma Judicial Center the Oklahoma Supreme Court was housed in the Oklahoma state capitol and, I believe, still has courtrooms in that building. Why shouldn’t the Ten Commandments be on the Capitol grounds? Does the Oklahoma court reject the foundations of our society and jurisprudence? If so, what foundations have they substituted?
Oklahoma Constitution: Article 2, Section 5:
Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.
"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."
Since several of the Commandments refer to God, making graven images, taking the Lord's name in vain, keeping the Sabbath holy, etc, their placement on public property could be fairly construed to be in support of a system of religion.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court said: "As concerns the "historic purpose" justification, the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths." (This was a 7-2 decision.)
Of course the whole thing also seems like a grandstanding play by politicians who undoubtedly could guess in advance which way the court would rule,
If I understand your argument about the location of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, you are comparing it to the U.S. Supreme Court and saying that if they have some carvings alluding to the Ten Commandments, why can't Oklahoma do something similar? But the Oklahoma Supreme Court based their ruling only on the Constitution of Oklahoma.
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.
- - - -
Specifically which sect, church, denomination, or system of religion has benefited and how so?
Specifically which priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution has benefited and how so?
System of religion: The court said that: "the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths."
Benefit: There doesn't have to be a "benefit"; the constitution also says "support". If you have a big sign with a religious message on it, it is reasonable to say that it is supporting a system of religion.
Specifically which priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution has benefited and how so?
The politician who paid for the original monument to be installed is also an ordained Baptist minister. You could say that he benefits politically.
Especially because his name was on the monument.
So multiple “systems of religion” are “supported”? Is that it? Pretty weak. In fact these judges need to pull their heads out of their collective asses. The monument supports the foundation of Western Civilization - the very system within which these judges operate.
> The politician who paid for the original monument to be installed is also an ordained Baptist minister. You could say that he benefits politically.
He is running for office? Is his name displayed on government property?
Everyone knows that the monument was not erected to support Western Civilization in general (which probably has multiple foundations). The monument was put there with a religious and political purpose.
The politician who paid for the original monument to be installed is also an ordained Baptist minister. You could say that he benefits politically.
He is running for office? Is his name displayed on government property?
He'll have to run next year if he wants to stay in office. Since his name was on the monument and that was on government property, his name was displayed on government property. Apparently a mentally ill person destroyed the original monument. I haven't checked if the same name is on the replacement monument but it is supposed to be identical.
Well no politician’s name should be on it.
BTW - Western Civilization IS a political cause. In my opinion it is foolhardy to knock out the foundations of civilization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.