10 Commandments to go on State Capitol

[Markk]

Fallin is doing what the residents of Oklahoma want. There is no "Seperation of church & state"  clause in the federal constitution, all the constitution says is the gov't cannot make or force a state religion on the people. The 10 commandments was paid for by private money. What's wrong with having some tolerance for the Christian faith? The best idea I heard so far  would be to let the residents of Oklahoma vote on this issue. What could be more fair than that? Heck, when I was in school in the 1970's they still used the words "Christmas Holiday" and the school band put on a "Christmas Concert" some of the Christmas songs they played were very religious in nature- today that would not be permitted. Today  Christmas is called  Winter recess and the only songs permitted is "Frosty the snowman" and "Jingle Bells". We changed alot in the past 35 years.

No one can make you read the Oklahoma Constitution.  What's worse, even if you did read it, no one can force you to understand it. 

[cannon_fodder]

Our overlord, Pruitt, has posted on social media that he is fighting to keep the Ten Commandments monument on State property in order to protect #OKReligiousLiberty, and linking to this website:
http://www.actionscottpruitt.com/

To see an Attorney General stoop to this level of poplulism is disgusting.

To see him ADMIT to his fans that he is fighting to keep a religious message on State Property, while arguing to the Court that this is a historic monument and not religious is what you call a total lack of integrity.

[Townsend]

Our overlord, Pruitt, has posted on social media that he is fighting to keep the Ten Commandments monument on State property in order to protect #OKReligiousLiberty, and linking to this website:
http://www.actionscottpruitt.com/

To see an Attorney General stoop to this level of poplulism is disgusting.

To see him ADMIT to his fans that he is fighting to keep a religious message on State Property, while arguing to the Court that this is a historic monument and not religious is what you call a total lack of integrity.

"Paid for by Scott Pruitt for Attorney General"

[cannon_fodder]

The one thing that really pisses me off is a lack of integrity. Is he being disingenuous, or is he an idiot?

"Constitutional Conversations with AG Pruitt:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q-YronZ7ho

Here he goes over "the case." Not really of course, he merely makes his argument, he doesn't explain the case at all. In fact, while he repeatedly states that the Ten Commandments should stay, he never argues how that is Constitutional in Oklahoma. Never bothers actually making a legal argument, or even alluding to one. Just that they should stay.

He starts by talking about the communist government in Romania. Government officials attended every church gathering, and if you tried to practice your faith outside of church you were arrested.  And that's exactly what you have happening here...

No, no it isn't. If the Church in Romania was trying to put a monument on the capital grounds, then its the same. But I don't think anyone Oklahoma official is attending any services to spy (probably actually are attending Muslim services to spy, but that's not his concern). Also, no one is being arrested for practicing their religion outside of church. So it isn't at all like what's happening.

The Ten Commandments are the foundation under which all of our laws as a state and country are founded..."

1. No other gods before me.  ---- not a law, definitely law, directly conflicts with the 1st Amendment
2. No graven images ---- not a law, literally carved in stone, a graven image. directly conflicts with the 1st Amendment
3. Though shalt not take thy name of the Lord God in vain ---- not a law god dammit, that's not a law either, directly conflicts with the 1st Amendment
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy ---- not a law
5.  Honor thy father and mother ---- not a law
6. Shalt not kill ---- not murdering is a law in every society, even non-christian ones. And in Oklahoma, we CAN kill - the death penalty, stand your ground, defense of proeprty, accidental discharge, if a black guy runs from the cops, etc. etc. etc.
7. No adultery ---- not a law,  broken by *some* high level politicians with utter impunity!
8. No stealing ---- again, a law in every society ever. Anyone who thinks this is only a law because its in the Bible is delusional
9. No false witness ---- not really a law, in that it *could* be construed to go to perjury, Judeo cultures have the same laws
10. Don't covet ---- not a law.

So we have seven things that aren't and can't be laws. One that isn't really a law. And two that are laws, but are universal natural laws of man.

How is this the foundation of Oklahoma law?

The monument was erected years ago...to show its historical nature..."

It was challenged almost as soon as it was erected, or at least as every other religion was turned down for the same honor. So to pretend its been there a long time is crap. And again, just because you keep saying it is historical, doesn't make it so.  The Code of Hammurabi, the laws of Ur and ancient Egypt... these all predate the 10 Commandments and have every law in them that has been translated, in any way, into American law.

Some organizations go around trying to eliminate all vestiges of religion and the historical nature...

The "historical nature" is clearly just a tag line at this point. He hasn't made it clear what he's talking about, but I think he means organizations are fighting to keep religion out of government. Which seems fair...

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on the issue, and that decision was wrong.

This is called indirect contempt. The action of not following the Court's order is called direct contempt.

Blah blah blah Slippery Slop... if this stands then Medicaid can't pay St. Johns etc. Religious colleges like OBU and Oral Roberts are in danger, etc. We need to consider the totality of the implications.

Utter BS. There is very clear case law from the Supreme Court on this EXACT issue. It found that government funds can go to a sectarian institution to facilitate purely secular purposes. Like providing medical care. Same with the private colleges, the scholarship/loan money goes to help pay for secular education. This is not in dispute. He either knows this and is fear mongering, or he doesn't know it and should be embarrassed.

Free exercise of religion needs to be protected. There is no right not to be offended... so the Ten Commandments Monument should stay.

Huh? The free exercise clause works hand in hand with the establishment clause. It very specifically DOESNT MEAN that the government can choose one religion to support over all others. It has nothing to do with being offended.

Again, lack of integrity, or idiot?

[cannon_fodder]

Who do you think makes a better case, Pruitt, or the ACLU of Oklahoma:
http://acluok.org/2015/07/13-faq-about-the-oklahoma-ten-commandments-decision-2/

In the wake of the Ten Commandments decision, many Oklahomans rightly have questions about the court case itself and Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. And with all of the political posturing coming from various sources, it can be understandably difficult to tell fact from fiction. On behalf of our clients in this case (all Christians who view the Ten Commandments as sacred to their faith) we have been studying this important part of our Constitution for many years, researching the history behind Oklahoma's Constitution, including reading documents from the very convention that gave birth to our great state. With that in mind, we hope to shed some accurate and honest answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about our Constitution and this important decision.

To help with our very important work, Click here.

Q: Why did the Court order the Ten Commandments Monument in Oklahoma be removed when an earlier decision by the United States Supreme Court let a similar monuments in Texas stay put?

A: It's true that in 2004 the United States Supreme Court allowed Texas to keep its Ten Commandments Monument. The Court's ruling was based on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In what the deciding Justice called a "borderline case," a slim majority of the Court found that the context of the monument meant that it did not violate the First Amendment. On the very same day, the Supreme Court looked at the context of another monument in Kentucky and ruled it had to be removed. We invite you to read both opinions about Texas and Kentucky.

However, these rulings were not at issue in the Oklahoma case. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Oklahoma Ten Commandments Monument violated Art 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution.



Q: What is Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution?

A: It is an original part of our State Constitution introduced and adopted with support from community leaders, Christian clergy, and Native American representatives. It is an important limit on government power. It tells the government that it cannot discriminate among religions by supporting any one (or several) religions, churches, or clergy with public property or public funds. The full text of Article 2, Section 5 is short, clear, and easy to understand. Don't just take our word for it. Read it for yourself here.



Q: Why did the founders of Oklahoma include it in our Constitution?

A: Many Christian ministers and Oklahoma Constitutional Convention delegates supported it to keep politics out of religion, knowing, based on previous experience, that when churches or pastors were funded by the government, political forces often ended up compromising or corrupting their faiths. Many Native Americans and their non-Native allies supported it (and had proposed similar language a at the earlier Sequoyah Convention) in response to abusive practices in which some government-funded religious schools forcibly Christianized Indian children.

To help with our very important work, Click here.



Q: Some people are talking about the "Blaine Amendment." What is that?

A: The Blaine Amendment was a failed federal constitutional amendment proposed in the 1880's by a Republican Congressman, Speaker of the House, and failed Presidential Candidate from Maine named James Blaine. The amendment was aimed at ensuring that public schools could not be operated by a church or otherwise under the control of any particular religion. The proposed amendment failed to get enough votes in the U.S. Senate in 1875, effectively killing the proposal.



Q: So what does the Blaine Amendment have to do with Oklahoma?

A: In a word, nothing. It was proposed by a national politician from Maine and failed in Congress more than thirty years before Oklahoma was even a state.



Q: Sure, but several states put similar language to the Blaine Amendment in their State Constitutions.  Is Article 2, Section 5 a state "Blaine Amendment?"

A: No. In fact, Oklahoma's Article 2, Section 5 is not an amendment at all–it was proposed early in Oklahoma's Constitutional Convention and adopted as one of the first provisions in our Bill of Rights. It was written and adopted at the Oklahoma Constitutional Convention that began in 1906 and uses language different from the original Blaine Amendment. Our courts and scholars have long understood that the language and ideas of Article 2, Section 5 come from the same basic premise as the First Amendment–freedom from government interference in matters of faith and and prohibiting discrimination based on religion.



Q: But does Oklahoma have a state equivalent to the Blaine Amendment?

A: Yes, but it is in a different part of the Oklahoma Constitution and played no part in the Ten Commandments Monument decision. Article I of the Oklahoma Constitution has a provision about public education that contains a phrase requiring that public schools be "free from sectarian control." This provision was required by the Republican-controlled United States Congress as a condition of statehood.



Q: I've heard that the Blaine Amendment was bigoted and targeted Catholics. Is that true? What does this mean about Oklahoma's Constitution?

A: Both the failed federal and several state Blaine Amendments have been alleged to have been motivated, in part, to exploit the anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant political environment that existed in the late 1800's. However, there is no credible evidence that religious bigotry had anything to the adoption of Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. It came from an entirely different people, place, and time.

But that doesn't mean we don't know why the framers included this provision.

Based on the actual records and reports of the Oklahoma Constitutional Convention and the preceding Sequoyah Convention we know full well that the delegates wanted to protect religious liberty from threats by politicians and the government. In addition, the several Native American Tribes in Oklahoma and their non-Native allies were also concerned about publicly financed programs that paid schools run by Protestants and Catholics to forcibly Christianize Native American children in hopes of breaking their young students' historical bonds with their tribes and assimilate the students into white society. Delegates understandably wanted a constitution that prevented the exploitation of religion for political purposes.

So while Oklahoma's Constitution may have provisions that share some language with so-called Blaine Amendments in other states' constitutions, our Constitution is informed by our own unique history and our framers' efforts at preventing the use of religion as a weapon used by government, while preserving the right of religious liberty for future generations of Oklahomans.



Q: If Article 2, Section 5 is repealed does it mean that the state can keep the Ten Commandments Monument?

A: Not necessarily. If the provision is repealed and the Monument re-erected at the Capitol, it's likely the new monument will be challenged almost immediately under the United States Constitution. Such a challenge would have a significant probability of success at removing the new Monument, though at the expense of a great deal more wasted tax dollars and unnecessary division and pain for Oklahomans on all sides of the debate.



Q:  Does this ruling mean that the Ten Commandments Monument has to be destroyed?

A: Absolutely not. The Monument can be given back to its donor and relocated to private property. In fact, if the monument is placed on private property and that placement is ever challenged, the ACLU stands ready to defend the Constitutional rights of the owners of the private Monument. The Oklahoma Constitution limits the government's power to endorse and support specific religious ideas, while at the same time protecting the people's right to express their faith.



Q: Would amending the Oklahoma Constitution open the door for a Satanic Statue or other religious monuments?

A: Here's what we know for sure: With its decision in the Ten Commandments Monument Case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court shut the door on the proposed Satanic statute and other obviously religious monuments. Case closed.

Repealing Article 2, Section 5 and re-erecting a new Ten Commandments Monument would re-open that door. That doesn't automatically mean that the Satanic Temple would be successful, but it would restore the possibility. Almost certainly there would be additional chaos, new applications, and a host of unintended consequences that go along with removing longstanding and fundamental law.



Q: Speaking of unintended consequences, I'm worried that the ruling in this case will jeopardize Native American art on public grounds or government payments to faith based hospitals. What gives?

A: Rest easy. The Native American art on public grounds is safe. Nothing in the Court's decision concerning the Ten Commandments monument endangers the maintenance of historical items just because they acknowledge or mention something that could be religious. The decision simply enforces the Constitution's ban on government discriminating among religions by explicitly endorsing the message of one religion over another. The Ten Commandments Monument very clearly commands anyone reading it to worship God in a specific way. The Constitution forbids government support for the unmistakable religious message like the one in the Ten Commandments Monument. The Constitution does not block the simple mention or acknowledgment of religion.

Government reimbursements for services at faith based hospitals, and any other instances of the government transacting normal business with religious organizations are also safe. In fact, the ACLU of Oklahoma recently weighed in on a case in which a police officer was fired because he refused to serve a particular part of his community because of their faith. We said that sort of discrimination in the delivery of government services, including fire departments and police departments, was illegal and the courts agreed.



Q:  Ok, just so I've got this straight:



The Ten Commandments Case was brought by three Christians who objected to politicians using religion for their own political agendas.
The plaintiffs relied on a part of the Oklahoma Constitution that our founders included to limit the government from exploiting religion for political purposes.
Even though that part of the Oklahoma Constitution shares a few similar words to part of the Blaine Amendment, most of it is completely different, it is decades removed from the failed Blaine Amendment and adopted for entirely different reasons–coming about because of our state's respect for religious freedom, informed by our own unique history, including early attacks on Native Americans and their rich culture.
Amending the Constitution would remove this hundred-plus year old protection and invite further chaos and more severally divide Oklahomans along religious lines.
Even then, it's still likely that any new Ten Commandments Monument would be removed as a result of a challenge under the Federal Constitution. And the comments of the Monument being destroyed and threats to Native American art are as outrageous as they sound.


Sounds like a bunch of politicians are making over-the-top statements to get headlines and aren't really thinking this thing through. Right?

A: Correct you are.

[Conan71]

The one thing that really pisses me off is a lack of integrity. Is he being disingenuous, or is he an idiot?

I'll take idiot for $10,000, Cannon.



Uncanny resemblance:

[swake]

The one thing that really pisses me off is a lack of integrity. Is he being disingenuous, or is he an idiot?

"Constitutional Conversations with AG Pruitt:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q-YronZ7ho

Here he goes over "the case." Not really of course, he merely makes his argument, he doesn't explain the case at all. In fact, while he repeatedly states that the Ten Commandments should stay, he never argues how that is Constitutional in Oklahoma. Never bothers actually making a legal argument, or even alluding to one. Just that they should stay.

No, no it isn't. If the Church in Romania was trying to put a monument on the capital grounds, then its the same. But I don't think anyone Oklahoma official is attending any services to spy (probably actually are attending Muslim services to spy, but that's not his concern). Also, no one is being arrested for practicing their religion outside of church. So it isn't at all like what's happening.

1. No other gods before me.  ---- not a law, definitely law, directly conflicts with the 1st Amendment
2. No graven images ---- not a law, literally carved in stone, a graven image. directly conflicts with the 1st Amendment
3. Though shalt not take thy name of the Lord God in vain ---- not a law god dammit, that's not a law either, directly conflicts with the 1st Amendment
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy ---- not a law
5.  Honor thy father and mother ---- not a law
6. Shalt not kill ---- not murdering is a law in every society, even non-christian ones. And in Oklahoma, we CAN kill - the death penalty, stand your ground, defense of proeprty, accidental discharge, if a black guy runs from the cops, etc. etc. etc.
7. No adultery ---- not a law,  broken by *some* high level politicians with utter impunity!
8. No stealing ---- again, a law in every society ever. Anyone who thinks this is only a law because its in the Bible is delusional
9. No false witness ---- not really a law, in that it *could* be construed to go to perjury, Judeo cultures have the same laws
10. Don't covet ---- not a law.

So we have seven things that aren't and can't be laws. One that isn't really a law. And two that are laws, but are universal natural laws of man.

How is this the foundation of Oklahoma law?

It was challenged almost as soon as it was erected, or at least as every other religion was turned down for the same honor. So to pretend its been there a long time is crap. And again, just because you keep saying it is historical, doesn't make it so.  The Code of Hammurabi, the laws of Ur and ancient Egypt... these all predate the 10 Commandments and have every law in them that has been translated, in any way, into American law.

The "historical nature" is clearly just a tag line at this point. He hasn't made it clear what he's talking about, but I think he means organizations are fighting to keep religion out of government. Which seems fair...

This is called indirect contempt. The action of not following the Court's order is called direct contempt.

Utter BS. There is very clear case law from the Supreme Court on this EXACT issue. It found that government funds can go to a sectarian institution to facilitate purely secular purposes. Like providing medical care. Same with the private colleges, the scholarship/loan money goes to help pay for secular education. This is not in dispute. He either knows this and is fear mongering, or he doesn't know it and should be embarrassed.

Huh? The free exercise clause works hand in hand with the establishment clause. It very specifically DOESNT MEAN that the government can choose one religion to support over all others. It has nothing to do with being offended.

Again, lack of integrity, or idiot?

I really like your breakdown on the 10 commandments and US law. Outstanding.

[Ed W]

I'll take lack of integrity for $20,000, Cannon. Can I get a side order of cynical with that? He knows this will not stand unless the state constitution is changed and he knows it will cost us taxpayers a boatload of money. But it has tremendous appeal for the conservative base and when he announces his candidacy for the governor's office......

[heironymouspasparagus]

We need to support Mary Fallin on this issue. Let's face it 70% of the residents of Oklahoma want the 10 commandments there.

It's kind of like the whole discussion of torture during the Bush years...."it's what the people want", so ignore the law, and let's just do what we want! 

There was an Arizona legislator a couple years ago saying he personally didn't really approve, but if his constituents wanted it, he would vote for slavery!

Either be a nation that adheres to the concept of "rule of law"...or continue like we have been...  Sounds like the decision has already been made.

[patric]

Let take a step back for a second...


Oklahoma voters (in 2010) approved a measure that bans the application of Islamic law and orders judges in the state to rely only on federal law when deciding cases.  State Rep. Rex Duncan, a Republican, was the primary author of the measure, which amends that state constitution.

"I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments.  Isn't that a precept of another culture and another nation?  The result of this is that judges aren't going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/03/law-professor-ban-on-sharia-law-a-mess/

So they shot themselves in the other foot.  By outlawing Sharia or non-American laws, the AG and Governess can only consider our federal law.
Here it is, Mary:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Let take a step back for a second...


Oklahoma voters (in 2010) approved a measure that bans the application of Islamic law and orders judges in the state to rely only on federal law when deciding cases.  State Rep. Rex Duncan, a Republican, was the primary author of the measure, which amends that state constitution.

"I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments.  Isn't that a precept of another culture and another nation?  The result of this is that judges aren't going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/03/law-professor-ban-on-sharia-law-a-mess/

So they shot themselves in the other foot.  By outlawing Sharia or non-American laws, the AG and Governess can only consider our federal law.
Here it is, Mary:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That law never was certified to begin with, so they are arguing about a "law" that isn't.  And never has been.

One of the "arguments" went to the use of International law and the contortions used were astounding - if it were a circus act it would be famous!!  Oh, wait...Oklahoma legislature IS a circus act...and it is famous - for all the wrong reasons!

International law as implemented in treaties, et. al., IS by definition the Supreme Law of the land.  As per the Constitution that none of the acts in the Clown Show have ever bothered to read.

[RecycleMichael]

My ten aren't completely Commandments...I just think they are really cool things to live you life by...

1.  Thou shalt recycle.

2.  Thou shalt remember the years OU won championships and thou wife's birthday.

3.  Thou shalt not drink whiskey after beer.

4.  Thou shalt not watch porn at work nor leave the DVD in the player at home.

5.  Thou shalt not steal nor borrow for very long things thy neighbor needs back.

6.  Thou shalt not witness bears wearing falsies.

7.  Thou shalt only murder things that either taste good or creep you out.

8.  Honor thy wife whilst she knows when you sleep and can hurt you.

9.  Thou shalt not wear clothing with corporate logos unless thus paid to.

10. Thou shalt not feed thy dog chili unless he is an outside dog

Over six years and still no monument to my words...

[Hoss]

No.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oklahoma-court-ten-commandments-monument-capitol-32717701

[swake]

No.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oklahoma-court-ten-commandments-monument-capitol-32717701

[heironymouspasparagus]

Over six years and still no monument to my words...

Maybe we could start a 'cloud-funding' effort to have these words immortalized and placed on the state Capital grounds...I would pitch in $10 or so....