A Ten Commandments display erected in 2012 on the grounds of the state capitol building of Oklahoma City, Okla.
Posted on 07/02/2015 8:42:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Oklahoma's Supreme Court ruled that a Ten Commandments display on the capitol grounds of Oklahoma City must be removed.
In a 7-2 decision released Tuesday, the state's highest court concluded that the privately-funded 6-foot tall granite monument violates the Oklahoma constitution, which states, "No public ... property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any ... system of religion ...."
"Because the monument at issue operates for the use, benefit or support of a sect or system of religion, it violates Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution and is enjoined and shall be removed," concluded the opinion, overturning a lower court decision.
In 2012, a Ten Commandments monument was installed on the grounds of the Oklahoma City Capitol Building, which was paid for with private donations.
The display came three years after a bill passed allowing for monuments to be installed at the public facility like the Decalogue.
The Decalogue was about six feet tall and three feet wide, being placed on a base approximately ten feet from the building's north transept.
In August 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Baptist minister who argued that the display was unconstitutional.
The Capitol Decalogue garnered more attention as American Atheists also filed a lawsuit against the display and a Satanist group lobbied to get a statue placed on the grounds, arguing equal access.
Last September, Oklahoma County District Judge Thomas Prince ruled in favor of the display, arguing that like other displays at the Capitol the Ten Commandments had a blend of historical and spiritual significance.
"Many of these monuments and plaques depict both the secular and spiritual history of Oklahoma," wrote Prince, who noted that multiple images of Native American spiritual imagery exists in the various monuments.
"In short, the evidence demonstrates that the Ten Commandments Monument is one of many monuments and works of art, all rich with symbolism (some religious), that dot the Capitol Grounds."
Brady Henderson, legal director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, said in a statement last September that his organization disagreed with Prince's decision.
"We will appeal this decision and ask the Oklahoma Supreme Court to find that the Oklahoma Constitution does not give the government the power to cheapen inherently religious texts," stated Henderson.
Regarding the state supreme court's decision, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt stated that the justices "got it wrong."
Pruitt has filed a petition for rehearing, which according to local news should delay the removal of the Ten Commandments monument.
Meanwhile, state Republican legislators including Rep. Kevin Calvey have called for the impeachment of the justices who ruled against the Decalogue.
"These Supreme Court justices are nothing more than politicians in black robes, masquerading as objective jurists," stated Calvey.
"This ruling is the court engaging in judicial bullying of the people of Oklahoma, pure and simple. It is time that the people chose jurists."
I assume this would also end the attempt by the Church of Satan to build their own monument on the capitol grounds as well?
Can this small piece of property be sold, deeded, or otherwise transferred to a non-gov’t entity?
Yes
These articles about this issue have failed to give the historical background of the OK constitutional provision used by their Supreme Court to order the removal of the Ten Commandments. The OK court used what is called a Blaine Amendment. During the Post-Civil War era the dominant WASPs became concerned about public money going to Catholic Schools. Let us say the Protestant Establishment wanted children to go to public schools which at that time taught a lowest common denominator Protestantism, for example, reading from the King James version of the Bible. (The OK monument is an modern day example of this as it is the Protestant version.) So President Grant and Republican Congressman James Blaine proposed a US Constitutional Amendment to ban the use of tax money and land for sectarian purposes including schools. The Federal Amendment failed to get out of Congress but all but 11 states passed a Blaine Amendment in their constitutions. Lawsuits have successful stopped school vouchers from going to sectarian schools based on Blaine Amendments. It seems the OK Supreme Court made the correct decision since the amendment clearly states, “No public...property shall ever be...used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion..” The monument on public property and the use of the Protestant 10 Commandments clearly violated the language of the amendment. I do have a macabre joy in seeing this blowback from what was passed as a blatantly anti-Catholic law. The politicians of OK had plenty of time to revoke this amendment. Traditionalists, and I consider myself one, better get ready for the weapons used in the past to come back to bit us in the arse.
I’ll bet they squawk about it.
It does. Because the same reasoning in this case would apply to a Satanic monument.
They can also vote to exclude the particular piece of property from any further jurisdiction of the court or even to impeach or reorganize the court.
The Evil Ones want Traditional Americans to be ashamed and hiding at all times, and use our own rules against us to do it. I long for the day when they are put in their place.
Don't Catholics and Jews share a common heritage with the same 10 Commandments? I understand the Doxey wording may differ somewhat with the KJV, but isn't the meaning the same?
.
The ten commandments are no part of any ‘religion,’ nor ‘sect.’
Religions, and sects are completely apart from God, as they are the creations of men.
The commandments are from God.
The OK court erred in deep ignorance.
.
“Meanwhile, state Republican legislators including Rep. Kevin Calvey have called for the impeachment of the justices who ruled against the Decalogue.”
Hopefully, he will follow through on this immediately. A clear message needs to be sent. I wished the Repubs in the U.S. House would do the same to the 5 that voted for homosexual marriage.
Whatever, in Oklahoma the Supreme Court Justices are subject to sustainment votes by the people. Hopefully, if the legislature doesn’t act, then the people will publicize the names of these justices and work to have them voted out of office as each comes up for sustainment votes. BTW - This is what Ted Cruz wants to amend the COTUS to subject SCOTUS justices to sustainment votes as well.
The text clearly supports their decision, but haven't we entered an era where what the law actually means is irrelevant?
Had I been on the court, I would have denied removal simply because it pisses off all the right people.
Yep.
It is merely on display. It is not an edict by anybody in Oklahoma to either read or follow the commandments.
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.