That article is awesome.
The bill specifically requires the monument to be proportionate to other monuments and have only the text of the Ten Commandments.
The specificity is a way to simplify the issue for voters, who shot down State Question 792 in November.
That was a broader proposal to allow public money and property to be used for any religious purpose.
Where as this is a more narrow proposal to only allow public money and property to be used for one religious purpose. Which the Oklahoma Supreme Court says was inappropriate under the Oklahoma Constitution, so we had a vote to change the Constitution which failed. What that means is that under our Constitution one cannot put a religious monument on State property.
There were a lot of people putting out things like 'You’re going to have a spaghetti monster on the state capitol, a satanic monument, all kinds of things like that, because how can you restrict that?' And, I think that was a legitimate concern. I met a lot of people who told me they were concerned about that question. But, they liked the idea of the Ten Commandments being displayed.
This ignores the first problem - that the proposal has explicitly been rules on, and jumps straight on analysis of a Federal Challenge: the State of Oklahoma cannot support one religion over others. So yea, a fear that allowing one religious monument will open the door to many others is a very justified fear. The US Supreme Court has been fairly straight forward on the issue over many cases.
But, he insists the statue - which he said conveys values held by all faiths - is important to his constituents.
Buddhist, Taoists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, CFSM, Scientologists, and a bunch of others disagree. Particularly that bit about "no Gods but me" and not bowing to "idols." Those bits are kind of offensive to everyone not in an Abrahamic religion.
Even Jews and Christians would disagree depending on which version of the Ten Commandments you put up.
"This is just another thing that we can deal with as lawmakers, to do what it is that the people of Oklahoma want," he said. "This idea that just because some people might be offended by that that we can’t do it I think is taking political correctness to an extreme, and we just need to avoid that."
We voted on this exact issue in November, and it failed. I know you think it was confusing because it allowed religious freedom for everyone, not just your group, but that's how it works. And if you think Separation of Church and State is "political correctness to an extreme," you desperately need to review US history and Constitutional law. The issue isn't that other faiths are offended, it is that the State of Oklahoma is endorsing one faith group over all others.