10 Commandments to go on State Capitol

[Gaspar]

Strange since the official Supreme Court Handbook up until 1975 said "Directly above the Bench are two central figures, depicting Majesty of the Law and Power of Government. Between them is a tableau of the Ten Commandments..."  It has since been edited.  Duh.




But you're probably right, this image must just be an elderly gentleman carrying the Bill of Rights. . . uh, in Hebrew.


. . .And this is the image of a man teaching his children to read the Bill of Rights.


Would you like to know what the Hebrew says on that tablet?  It's a bit unfortunate (and funny) and fodder for conspiracy theorists.

[Townsend]

Contrary to Christian Right mythology, the Ten Commandments are not displayed in the U.S. Supreme Court. In stead, high on the south wall in the courtroom is the figure of Moses holding one tablet, not two, with a few Hebrew words incribed on it.

People will be surprised to learn that none of the religious commandments are displayed. Suprisingly, and most likely intentionally, Adolph A. Weinman, the sculptor who designed the Court's friezes, placed Moses's beard where the word "not" ordinarily would have been. (Note: Hebrew is written right to left.) The result is that the tablet literaly translantes to: "Thou Shall Murder." "Thou Shall Commit Adultery". And "Steal." Thus, if anything, the Supreme Court displays the anti-Ten Commandments. Sacrilege!

Avrahaum G. Segol has brought this matter to the attention of the Supreme Court and the Court has apparently chosen to supress or ignore this information (by not updating its website or literature.



http://www.jmcenter.org/pages/south_wall_frieze.html

[Gaspar]

Oh yeah, and I forgot, this is not Mohamed and the Koran.
It's just some guy with a book full of scribbles.

[Townsend]

Oh yeah, and I forgot, this is not Mohamed and the Koran.
It's just some guy with a book full of scribbles.

So we are a Muslim country

[Gaspar]

So we are a Muslim country

By weight, not volume.

[Townsend]

By weight, not volume.

So I can be 16 ounces of Muslim but I can't be 2 cups of Muslim.

[cannon_fodder]

Gaspar, this has been well covered.  Here is a list of images in and around the Supreme Court:

Mosses (Jewish, 10 Commandments)

King Hammurabi  (Babylonian, Hammurabi code)

Mohammad (Muslim, Sharia law)

Confucius (Confucianism, the Golden Rule)

Solon (Pagan, drafted Athenian constitution)

Pharaoh Menes (Pagan, Egyptian law foundation)

King Solomon (Jewish, many Jewish laws)

Draco (Pagan, ancient Greek lawgiver, rather Draconian)

Emperor Octavian (Pagan, Roman emperor at the time of Jesus, revised Roman law [many say by killing the Republic for good])

Emperor Justinian  (Eastern Orthodox, Holy Roman Emperor - standardized laws in the Balkans)

King Charlemagne (Catholic, King of France)

King John (Catholic, signed Magna Carta)

King Louis IX (Catholic, known for the Crusades later diplomat to the MidEast)

Hugo Grotius (Catholic turned heretic turned Desiest, Dutch Judge - international law foundations)

Sir Wiliam Blackstone (Church of England [hated Catholics with a passion], founder of modern property law)

John Marshall (Episcopalian, American Justice, defined separation of powers)

Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (Catholic, Napoleonic Code still largely used in Louisiana, France and the basis for most EU laws)



It is clear that the monuments depict what they claim to:  Great Law Givers.  Gods and Goddesses have been the "source" of  most of the laws in the ancient world and that continues to today (Xeno of the Scientologists says you shouldn't made noise during child birth and should give him/them money).  Many of those traditions have carried forward and/or influenced our laws.  The Christians borrowed mostly from the Jews, who adopted many of their fables and laws from other cultures, who no doubt borrowed from others themselves.  But the monument depicts the men that gave forth the laws, without regard to religion.

If Oklahoma was building a monument to great law givers they could proceed.  But they aren't.  They are building a monument to the Protestant Christian Version of the 10 Commandments which they believe was delivered by their God and must be obeyed to appease Him. Which most of the Great Law Givers depicted in the Supreme Court Building wouldn't acknowledge as the basis for their laws/rulings.

I do not believe those in support of the 10 Commandments Monument do so for any reason but religious conviction.  It is simply not an honest argument to pretend "Though Shall Have No Gods Before Me" is a basis for our secular laws nor an appropriate position for the State of Oklahoma to advocate.  Unless, of course, you adhere to a evangelical faith and want to spread your message and/or the importance of your faith . . . which is exactly why it is prohibited.

[Gaspar]

Gaspar, this has been well covered.  Here is a list of images in and around the Supreme Court:

Mosses (Jewish, 10 Commandments)

King Hammurabi  (Babylonian, Hammurabi code)

Mohammad (Muslim, Sharia law)

Confucius (Confucianism, the Golden Rule)

Solon (Pagan, drafted Athenian constitution)

Pharaoh Menes (Pagan, Egyptian law foundation)

King Solomon (Jewish, many Jewish laws)

Draco (Pagan, ancient Greek lawgiver, rather Draconian)

Emperor Octavian (Pagan, Roman emperor at the time of Jesus, revised Roman law [many say by killing the Republic for good])

Emperor Justinian  (Eastern Orthodox, Holy Roman Emperor - standardized laws in the Balkans)

King Charlemagne (Catholic, King of France)

King John (Catholic, signed Magna Carta)

King Louis IX (Catholic, known for the Crusades later diplomat to the MidEast)

Hugo Grotius (Catholic turned heretic turned Desiest, Dutch Judge - international law foundations)

Sir Wiliam Blackstone (Church of England [hated Catholics with a passion], founder of modern property law)

John Marshall (Episcopalian, American Justice, defined separation of powers)

Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (Catholic, Napoleonic Code still largely used in Louisiana, France and the basis for most EU laws)



It is clear that the monuments depict what they claim to:  Great Law Givers.  Gods and Goddesses have been the "source" of  most of the laws in the ancient world and that continues to today (Xeno of the Scientologists says you shouldn't made noise during child birth and should give him/them money).  Many of those traditions have carried forward and/or influenced our laws.  The Christians borrowed mostly from the Jews, who adopted many of their fables and laws from other cultures, who no doubt borrowed from others themselves.  But the monument depicts the men that gave forth the laws, without regard to religion.

If Oklahoma was building a monument to great law givers they could proceed.  But they aren't.  They are building a monument to the Protestant Christian Version of the 10 Commandments which they believe was delivered by their God and must be obeyed to appease Him. Which most of the Great Law Givers depicted in the Supreme Court Building wouldn't acknowledge as the basis for their laws/rulings.

I do not believe those in support of the 10 Commandments Monument do so for any reason but religious conviction.  It is simply not an honest argument to pretend "Though Shall Have No Gods Before Me" is a basis for our secular laws nor an appropriate position for the State of Oklahoma to advocate.  Unless, of course, you adhere to a evangelical faith and want to spread your message and/or the importance of your faith . . . which is exactly why it is prohibited.

No, my point was supposed to be more of a playful retort to illustrate that the "outrage" is silly. 

Free the monuments. 

We are a nation of many different religions and belief systems.  If the voters in an area want to support such monuments on their public/government land, then let them.  These are not laws and there is no precedent that they are used as such. The federal, state, or regional governments have no power to establish, through force, any religion.  As long as no congressional law is passed granting or restricting the construction of such a monument, than let them have their art and philosophy.

. . . And as for politicians, they too have the right to free speech and religious practice.  They were elected by the people, in part, based on their convictions and beliefs.  I would argue that the religious convictions of a single politician has more bearing and influence on actual law than any stone figure.

Why is the ACLU not outraged that 85% of Congress are Christians?
(I would guess they probably are)

Buddha, Mohammed, Sol Invictus, Sigmund the Seamonster, whoever a community draws religious strength from should be freely celebrated on the land owned by the people. 

But, that's just my opinion, and I can spew it all day long.

[Bledsoe]

Cannon fodder is correct:  Intent and Context are everything.  This makes almost every case unique -unfortunately for the taxpayers who must ultimately pay the attorneys fees.

See the following:

Excerpts from Green v. Haskel County, No. 06-7098 (10th Cir. June 8, 2009)

The Ten Commandments have a secular significance that government may
acknowledge. See Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 688-89 (plurality opinion) (providing
examples showing that "acknowledgments of the role played by the Ten
Commandments in our Nation's heritage are common throughout America" and
observing that the Court's "opinions, like our building, have recognized the role
the Decalogue plays in America's heritage"); id. at 701 (Breyer, J., concurring)
(noting that in certain contexts the Commandments can convey "a secular moral
message . . . about proper standards of social conduct" or a message "about a
historic relation between those standards and the law"). Like the McCreary
Court, we are unwilling to presume that the text of the Ten Commandments here
could not be constitutionally integrated into a governmental display that
highlights its secular significance. See McCreary, 545 U.S. at 874 (expressly
declining to hold that "a sacred text can never be integrated constitutionally into a
governmental display on the subject of law, or American history").9

...

However, the Monument is not a part of a unified exhibit in a "typical
museum setting" like the statute found in O'Connor. See O'Connor, 416 F.3d at
1228 (noting that a brochure made clear "that the statue was part of an outdoor art
exhibit"). Nor is the courthouse lawn a setting that is typically associated with
intellectual experimentation like the university setting of O'Connor. Id. at 1229-
30 (noting that the statue at issue, Holier Than Thou, was "displayed in the
context of a university campus, a place that is peculiarly the marketplace of
ideas" and that "especially" in that context "no reasonable person would associate
the message of Holier Than Thou with the state" (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Furthermore, we do not view the Haskell County courthouse context as
bearing a close resemblance to the monument setting in Van Orden. 545 U.S. at
702 (Breyer, J., concurring) (describing the monument sitting "in a large park
containing 17 monuments and 21 historical markers, all designed to illustrate the
'ideals' of those who settled in Texas and of those who lived there since that
time").15 Although ultimately finding that the Monument had a secular effect, the
district court here acknowledged that "people . . . might see the monument display
[of Van Orden] in Texas as more cohesive, more integrated, more, well, artistic
than the Stigler mélange."16 Green, 450 F. Supp. 2d at 1288.
...

We conclude by underscoring the proposition that "[c]ontext carries much
weight in the Establishment Clause calculus." Weinbaum, 541 F.3d at 1033. In
the context of the small community of Haskell County, we hold that the Board's
actions in authorizing and maintaining the Monument—inscribed with the Ten
Commandments—on the courthouse lawn had the impermissible principal or
primary effect of endorsing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

___________

Also note what the Attorney General said yesterday:

But Edmondson said Oklahoma's monument more resembles the Haskell County monument than it does the Texas case. The Texas monument is part of an array of monuments dealing with history and the law, Edmondson said.

According to the Supreme Court's 2005 opinion in the Texas case, the 22 acres surrounding the Texas Capitol contain 17 monuments and 21 historical markers. They include war memorials, a volunteer firefighter memorial and a memorial to children.  Two statues are located on the south steps of Oklahoma's Capitol.

A location for placement of the monument has not been determined.

The Texas monument was placed by a fraternal organization.  That was not the case in Haskell County, Edmondson said.  The Texas Ten Commandments monument
also was present for 40 years before it was challenged.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090610_11_A1_Thisfo45659

[Conan71]

I think what a lot of people keep missing (the word was mentioned in one of Bledsoe's cited briefs which brought this back to mind) is the HERITAGE of Christianity in the founding and existence of the United States.

Our earliest heritage as a civilized country is that of Christian settlers:  Roman Catholics, Quakers, Mennonites, Puritans, etc. ad nausem from southern Europe and England.  Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island Colony is generally credited with founding one of the first, if not the first Baptist congregation in the Colonies.  William Penn was an unabashed Quaker.  Much of old colonial law came from Old Testament scriptures AND English Common Law.  

The oath of the Presidency is done on a Christian Bible.  Oh, the horror that our Presidents would swear on a Christian icon and end their oath with: "So help me God."!  No matter if it was George Washington or Chester Arthur who first uttered those words, it most certainly would have been the God of Christianity he was asking for help.

If you are so inclined, here's an interesting read from the LOC:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/

Our nation most definitely was settled and founded by Christians.  Still 75% of our country identifies themselves as being followers of Christianity.  

I honestly don't care if they put a statue of The Ten Commandments at the State Capitol and really don't see that it's a big deal to anyone other than a small minority of athiests who are constantly stirring the bucket of religious intolerance, people who ignore our heritage to push their own political agenda.  Our colonies were founded by people like Roger Williams who advocated religious tolerance.  Yes, the first amendment does provide that there shall be no official state religion, but it also provides that the free practice of religion shall not be restricted (loose paraphrase).

It could just as easily be argued that the Native American statue on top of the capitol building is a religious icon as they had their own religion and mysticism prior to being converted to Christianity by settlers.  Where's the outrage?  

I agree you can argue by placing The Ten Commandments on the state capitol that there should be all sorts of other religious icons allowed.  But is a monument of The Ten Commandments a religious icon or simply what many feel is a basis for our civil laws?  I feel that if the intent is to simply identify with the Christian heritage of Oklahoma settlers and The Ten Commandments place in our legal heritage, fine.  If it's a more malicious attempt by a legislator to insert his view of religion into government like a dog marking his territory, I've got a serious problem with it.  I would have to consider the intent of the legislation and monument to put it in proper context before becoming outraged.  Thus far, I've not seen anything that suggests this was malicious Christianeering.  This was also heavily supported around the state and in the legislature.

"The history of many of our current laws can be traced to the Ten Commandments, and this monument will simply acknowledge that heritage."  --Rep Mike Ritze.

[brianh]

I care that the ten commandments don't go on the state capital. The same people(baptists? non-denoms?) that put this monument there, if given the opportunity, would make sure you could never have a beer in this state again. The kind of people who would bring the ABLE commission down upon us and rally for dry counties. 

[cannon_fodder]

I think what a lot of people keep missing (the word was mentioned in one of Bledsoe's cited briefs which brought this back to mind) is the HERITAGE of Christianity in the founding and existence of the United States.

Yep.  Our heritage is that of people seeking to flee their homeland to avoid a State sponsored religion.  In many instances because they were officially harassed.  In other instances because it was made clear to them in other ways that their religion was not the right one (which is the Puritans left the Netherlands).  Our heritage is also that the State can not encourage or discourage any particular religion.

Subsequent to the initial Colonizers the vast waives of immigrants came for other reasons.  Probably 95% of immigrants to this country came for reason other than religious freedom.  Eastern Europeans, Irish, Italians, Africans, Mexicans and other Hispanics, Asians of all origins . . . economics and social opportunities played a much bigger role than religion for most (Catholics certainly didn't come for religious freedom as they were not welcome for a very long time).  Just like the "heritage" of Oklahoma is economic and not religious in nature (Indians: Lets go to Oklahoma so we can worship how we want!  Boomers/Sooners: Lets go to Oklahoma so we can worship Christ!).  

Placing a monument to the protestant 10 Commandments on the State Capital grounds or outside of a Courthouse can be interpreted as the State saying "we really like this religion." That's not my opinion, it is that of the Supreme Court and in reality, that's the entire reason it is being put up.  The desired effect is to remind people of the importance of religion and presumably influence their and/or lawmakers behavior accordingly.  There are a huge multitude of symbols and writings that are far more influential on our civil society than the 10 Commandments.

Much like wanting Creationism in classrooms, everything else is a pretext to accomplish the goal of promoting religion.  The oddity of being part of an evangelical faith and then pretending that a religious monument isn't really religious is fantastic.  The direct attack of proselytizing is an obvious failure, so lets skirt the rules and pretend the 10 Commandments and Creationism have nothing to do with religion.

and really don't see that it's a big deal to anyone other than a small minority of athiests who are constantly stirring the bucket of religious intolerance

My views are entirely blind to what faith is being advocated.  I wouldn't care if it was a Koranic verse, a Wikkan symbol, a Buddhist symbol, or the 10 Commandments being put in place.  It is still an expression of religion with no governmental purpose.  It just so happens that I am not aware of any other religious groups attempting to display their iconography in a manner that could be construed as a State religion.

I'm perfectly tolerant.  Practice whatever religious beliefs you want.  So long as your actions do not effect my ability to do the same.  That's the beauty of the system - I don't restrict the practice of your religion and you don't restrict the practice of mine.  The State doesn't advocate my beliefs and it abstains from advocating your beliefs.

Furthermore, the fact that only 15% of the Country identifies themselves as having no religious affiliation isn't relevant to the discussion.  It isn't a "majority rules" test or certainly Christianity would be the State Religion.  And not just any Christianity, it would have to be Oklahoma's brand of Christianity.  I don't want Creationism in the classroom because your God says so.  I don't want my access to alcohol restricted because your God doesn't want you to drink.  I don't want the State to tell people who they can marry because your God has certain things in mind (gay marriage, interracial marriage, inter religious marriage, young marriage, whatever).

Basically, don't enforce your God(s) will on me and I won't enforce my God(s) will upon you (decriminalized drugs, free flowing alcohol, definition of science for classrooms, open carry firearms, restriction on tax exempt status for social clubs  . . . my God is pretty cool).

"The history of many of our current laws can be traced to the Ten Commandments, and this monument will simply acknowledge that heritage."  --Rep Mike Ritze.

We'll do this AGAIN:

  1. You shall have no other gods but me.  (restriction on the practice of religion)
  2. You shall not make unto you any graven images (free speech, practice of religion.)
  3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain (free speech)
  4. You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it holy (mandating religious activity)
  5. Honor your mother and father (usually good advice in every culture, not a law)
  6. You shall not murder (a law in every society on earth and a law before the 10 Commandments)
  7. You shall not commit adultery (not even a basis for divorce anymore)
  8. You shall not steal (a law in nearly every society, predates the 10 Commandments)
  9. You shall not bear false witness (generally held concept in every society, not a law unless under oath)
 10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor (not a law, destroys the basis of our economy, thought control)

The notion that our laws are based on the 10 Commandments is simply not supported by even the most casual look at what they actually say.  Honestly, someone try to support that notion with a straight face.  The line is constantly thrown out there but has no merit at all.

Per the presidential reference, he can be sworn in on anything he wants.  A Bible, a Koran, a box of cracker jacks.  The person can choose as he sees fit.  It is an expression of his values.  Much like in Court a person is never required to swear to God or on the Bible but is able to if they wish.  A monument to a certain God in stone in front of the State Capital is very different to what could be construed as an individual profession of faith.

And the Native American statue at the top of the capital argue is also has no merit.  Native Americans had many religions including atheism, spiritualism, and Christianity.  I imagine there was and is no outrage because the statue is not religious in any way.  It is a depiction of a fictional purpose that may or may not subscribe to any number of religions.  



Gaspar said:

If the voters in an area want to support such monuments on their public/government land, then let them.  These are not laws and there is no precedent that they are used as such. The federal, state, or regional governments have no power to establish, through force, any religion.  As long as no congressional law is passed granting or restricting the construction of such a monument, than let them have their art and philosophy.

Fortunately, the majority can not dictate what is or is not constitutional.  Very frequently in discussions it is brought up that many people support it, or it is popular, or whatever.  That has no bearing on the constitutionality of the action.  If it is that popular, pass a Constitutional Amendment modifying the 1st Amendment.

The Court has repeatedly held that religious monuments can and often do serve as State endorsements of religion.  Force is not required to encourage religion, subtle practices can be used to make it clear what the correct religion is.  In Lemon the court basically said that a monument to religion in governmental affairs would make non-adherents to that religion feel at a civic and judicial disadvantage.   Even the appearance of a State endorsement of religion can be as detrimental as an actual endorsement.

People are free to have their art and their philosophy as they see fit.  The Bill of Rights grants RIGHTS to the people and restricts actions of the government.The Government is not allowed to endorse a particular religious philosophy above any other.  



/ramble (sorry, wrote this here and there while on hold)

[FOTD]

Great toon in TW ....sez it all!

[Hoss]

Great toon in TW ....sez it all!

I'm tempted to head over there to see what knuckle-dragging comments have been posted already...

[kylieosu]

Great toon in TW ....sez it all!

HAHA! Love it.