OK Supreme Court: 10 Commandments must come down

[Jose Fly]

It is part of an ancient code that has served society well. Likely, it is viewed as an historical monument by most folks.

I'm pretty sure that "most folks" would relate the 10 Commandments to Christianity and Judaism.

But, since it is also part of a religious format it may rightly be required to be taken down if some find it transgressing the separation of church and state.

Yep.

It seems making a mountain out of a molehill to me but Heavens! Where shall this end?

Um....hopefully with government officials focusing on doing government work, rather than wasting taxpayer money on religious displays.

 

[bybee]

I'm pretty sure that "most folks" would relate the 10 Commandments to Christianity and Judaism.



Yep.



Um....hopefully with government officials focusing on doing government work, rather than wasting taxpayer money on religious displays.

I agree.

 

[bybee]

Perhaps it'll end with activist politicians adhering to the constitution instead of wilfully breaking it and expecting no-one will have the energy to litigate.

Shouldn't legislators value the rule of law above religious posturing in public office?

Yes they should.

 

[rexlunae]

They sure can buy their own land and put whatever they want on it, but i would think the voters would have something to do with the sale of it (government land which is course government is supposedly of and by the people majorally), and doubtful you could get enough voters in those other categories to land it.

I think you're run into a whole host of Constitutional issues there. The government cannot set out to favor one religion over others or over none at all, and that includes in the sale of land.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I think you're run into a whole host of Constitutional issues there. The government cannot set out to favor one religion over others or over none at all, and that includes in the sale of land.

Which has nothing to do with what i said.

 

[rexlunae]

Which has nothing to do with what i said.

Of course it does. The government can't sell land with the intent that it be put to a religious purpose any more than it can put it to a religious purpose itself.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Of course it does. The government can't sell land with the intent that it be put to a religious purpose any more than it can put it to a religious purpose itself.

No, it doesn't, people voting on the sale of government land, has no bearing on that.

Good luck getting enough satanist voters.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why is it soooooooo important to some Christians to have the government endorse and/or promote their religion? Are they looking for validation of their beliefs?

 

[rexlunae]

No, it doesn't, people voting on the sale of government land, has no bearing on that.

Good luck getting enough satanist voters.

You can't use a vote to hide a religious agenda, and even Oklahoma isn't nutty enough to actually run real estate deals through an election.

 

[Jose Fly]

UPDATE

Oklahoma Supreme Court rejects appeal, orders removal of Ten Commandments stone at Capitol

Oklahoma’s Supreme Court on Monday said the state must remove a Ten Commandments stone monument first placed at its Capitol in 2012, rejecting an appeal to reconsider an earlier decision.

The justices denied a request by the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission to rethink the court’s June 30 decision that the statue’s placement violates the state constitution’s ban on the use of state property for the benefit of religion.

So we should be done here, right?

A spokesman for [Governor] Fallin said the state has not received a final order to remove the monument, which would come from district court.

“In the meantime, the state is reviewing what legal options are available for preserving the monument,” spokesman Alex Weintz said.

Not sure what else they think they can do. Again I have to wonder, why is it soooooooo important for some Christians to have the government promote and endorse their religion?

If the 10 Commandments are that important to you, put one up on your property and/or your church's property. But why does putting one up on government property warrant the amount of time, effort, and money required for all this legal activity? :idunno:

 

[quip]

Not sure what else they think they can do. Again I have to wonder, why is it soooooooo important for some Christians to have the government promote and endorse their religion?

For the same reason tyrants erect statues of themselves.

 

[Nazaroo]

For the same reason tyrants erect statues of themselves.

The only reason tyrants building statues has a negative connotation,
is because of Daniel and the Prophets.

Careful, your Judaeo-Christian cultural bias is showing...

 

[moparguy]

The idea that religious displays on government property are just fine and/or that the separation of church and state is a myth.

It's not a charade.

Those arguments are made right up until a non-Christian religious group asks to put up their own display. Then suddenly it's, "You can't do that".

Actually, by law, its more like sure, you can. By moral right, no, you shouldn't. Wanna stick up a monument to satan? Sure, you can, even though you shouldn't and you're just showing yourself for the immoral/immature and grossly intolerant of the majority jerk that you are, along with all the other evils that monument points to; don't cry when society (rightly) shuns you. You also shouldn't complain when others erect a monument right next to it explicitly pointing out all of its evils.

libs and others who are ignorant and intolerant bigots should realize that golly, yes, there WAS and there IS a worldview that underlies and undergirds the american government and society; namely, theistic rationalism; of a somewhat christianized variant. The founder's documents and such are easily available, and they make it bluntly clear that they WERE theists, who believed in a god; and beyond that god interacted with his creation after he had made it.

It is no myth that it's constitutional and thus legal to have "religious" monuments on public land; unless of course you ascribe to the idea that the law was broken when moses and the other law-givers were put up in WDC, etc, etc, etc. Also, in case you missed it, the declaration is theistic and specifically inserts theism as one of the CORE founding principals in our *founding* argument/document - that rights are inalienable because they come from "nature's god." Biblically Christian? No. Theistic? Absolutely yes.

----

I guess. The 10 Commandments monument never should have been put up in the first place. The government should focus on government business, not...as you put it..."nothing" issues like deciding who's religion to promote.

Governments ALWAYS promote their own underpinnings. There ARE NO non-religious worldviews. So every government promotes something; the proper question is, are they promoting the right thing?

Why is it soooooooo important to some Christians to have the government endorse and/or promote their religion? Are they looking for validation of their beliefs?

why is it SOOOOOOOOOOOOO important to you and other people to have the government endorse and/or promote your worldview? Why do you give a rip about the ten commandments being on government land? Be equal here, or realize you're being a hypocrite.

As for why do people react? For one, because it's just another sign of the hate of what's morally right by those who are SUPPOSED to be a representative government... and you know, we kind of think it's wrong to spit in God's face by a vain attempt to suppress your consciences by unrighteousness.

 

[Cons&Spires]

The thing I don't get about taking down the Ten Commandments is that, ironically, they will find themselves laboring under them anyway.

That's the straight up retard society we live in, I suppose..

 

[gcthomas]

There ARE NO non-religious worldviews.

I think you need to get out more and listen to people outside your immediate in-group. How can you be so insular in the modern connected world?

 

[bybee]

Yes...not sure what that has to do with anything though. The Code of the Hammurabi is pretty old too.

It has to do with it being an historically significant statement since time immemorial. Therefore more than a statement specific to a current religious group.
Are atheists so fragile that seeing a religious symbol shocks their tender sensibilities?

 

[Buzzword]

It has to do with it being an historically significant statement since time immemorial. Therefore more than a statement specific to a current religious group.

Except that we wouldn't have it at all were it not chosen to be included in a RELIGIOUS text...since time immemorial.

Being ancient doesn't automatically give it credence in modern society.
In fact it should do the opposite, given the rest of ancient Hebrew law.
It's from a time in which women were treated as property, people in general were treated as property, menstruation was treated as a curse of the devil, the pain of childbirth was treated as a curse of God, a man could hand over some money and not be held liable for rape, a women could be stoned for being a rape victim, a woman who had lost her hymen in one of the million ways it can be lost could be stoned for being a whore OR be ostracized from the community for being an unmarried non-virgin.......the list goes on and on.

Are atheists so fragile that seeing a religious symbol shocks their tender sensibilities?

Are church people so fragile that losing their age-old special treatment under a government which is supposed to be secular makes them break down emotionally and psychologically?

 

[bybee]

I do not have a problem with scrupulous separation of church and state. It is obviously something that is painful to many, but it is protection for all of us.
On the other hand, this (what appears to me) specious nitpicking over every jot and tittle that someone finds offensive is simply polarizing our society.
We are jousting at windmills whilst our society condones and defends something like the "slaughter of the innocents" as conducted by Planned Parenthood?

 

[Jose Fly]

Actually, by law, its more like sure, you can.

Except it didn't work that way, which is why the case has been in courts.

By moral right, no, you shouldn't. Wanna stick up a monument to satan? Sure, you can, even though you shouldn't and you're just showing yourself for the immoral/immature and grossly intolerant of the majority jerk that you are, along with all the other evils that monument points to; don't cry when society (rightly) shuns you. You also shouldn't complain when others erect a monument right next to it explicitly pointing out all of its evils.

Except again, that's not how this case went.

libs and others who are ignorant and intolerant bigots should realize that golly, yes, there WAS and there IS a worldview that underlies and undergirds the american government and society; namely, theistic rationalism; of a somewhat christianized variant. The founder's documents and such are easily available, and they make it bluntly clear that they WERE theists, who believed in a god; and beyond that god interacted with his creation after he had made it.

They also believed in slavery. Does that mean we erect monuments to that belief as well?

It is no myth that it's constitutional and thus legal to have "religious" monuments on public land

Only if they are part of a larger, diverse display. The problem here is, Christians wanted the government to erect a monument to their religion only.

unless of course you ascribe to the idea that the law was broken when moses and the other law-givers were put up in WDC, etc, etc, etc.

Not sure what the WDC is.

Also, in case you missed it, the declaration is theistic and specifically inserts theism as one of the CORE founding principals in our *founding* argument/document - that rights are inalienable because they come from "nature's god." Biblically Christian? No. Theistic? Absolutely yes.

So?

Governments ALWAYS promote their own underpinnings. There ARE NO non-religious worldviews. So every government promotes something; the proper question is, are they promoting the right thing?

As the courts have ruled, the Oklahoma state government did not do the right thing.

why is it SOOOOOOOOOOOOO important to you and other people to have the government endorse and/or promote your worldview?

What worldview is that?

Why do you give a rip about the ten commandments being on government land? Be equal here, or realize you're being a hypocrite.

Because as the courts have consistently ruled, it's unconstitutional.

As for why do people react? For one, because it's just another sign of the hate of what's morally right by those who are SUPPOSED to be a representative government... and you know, we kind of think it's wrong to spit in God's face by a vain attempt to suppress your consciences by unrighteousness.

That may be what you believe, but that only matters to you. The law is what matters in the legal system, and the courts have rendered their verdict.

 

[Jose Fly]

It has to do with it being an historically significant statement since time immemorial. Therefore more than a statement specific to a current religious group.

There are lots of "historically significant statements" out there, but the Oklahoma government would only allow this one monument to go up. Now surely you're not expecting everyone to feign ignorance and pretend that was just a coincidence, right?

Are atheists so fragile that seeing a religious symbol shocks their tender sensibilities?

It's not about sensibilities, it's about breaking the law.