The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Not At My Table - Political Discussions => Local & State Politics => Topic started by: perspicuity85 on May 08, 2009, 12:44:14 am



Title: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: perspicuity85 on May 08, 2009, 12:44:14 am
From Tulsa World:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=18&articleid=20090507_298_0_OKLAHO357706

Didn't like 5 other states in the deep south try to do this?

I am a Christian, okay, but this is a clear violation of church and state separation.
You want theocracy? Move to Afghanistan.

And, oh, I just can't wait for the national news media to get a hold of this.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 08, 2009, 09:29:09 am
I'm going to fund a monument that has some other bible versus on it, since the bible inspired our laws:

"I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by...." Ezek. 20:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=EZ%2020;&version=9;).


Or maybe some other divine laws?

"Then tell them, 'This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword I will send among you" (Jer. 25:27).  (we have laws on alcohol use)

"As I listened, god said to the others,'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children...." (Ezek. 9:5-6).  (we have laws about not slaughtering non-combatants in combat)

"A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the 10th generation shall he not enter...." (Deut. 23:2).  (we have laws against referring to children as bastards in Oklahoma, also we have laws against punishing children for the crimes of the parents)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence of the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving" (Col. 3:22-24).  (we have laws against slavery)

Ex. 21:20-21 says, "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his    property."  (we have laws against beating people, and people can not be property)

'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to
offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or
lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or
dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged
testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present
the offerings made to the Lord by fire. He has a defect.... because of this defect, he must not
go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary...." (Lev. 21:16:23).   (The Americans with Disability Act says churches can't deny people because they "have a defect.")



Or are some divinely inspired laws better than others?  If so, how do we know we "based our laws" off of the good ones?  Did God come back down to the Oklahoma Legislature and let them in on the secret.  I'm concerned God is "testing" us.



I won't bother going into the ones that say we can't wear mixed fabrics, that different breeds of cattle can't pasture together, that women on their period have to stay home and men that sleep with their wives when they are "unpure" should be expelled from the community, the dietary laws, and on and on and on.  But oh, these ten.  Hell yeah.  God would never give bad laws, contrary to what he says . . .

Maybe a Hindu, Muslim, Wikkan, or Satanic monument?  



Here is a brief recap of the basis for American law, assuming we all adopt the protestant version and we agree on the meaning of each:

   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, not a law)
   6. You shall not murder (a law in every society on earth, even non Judeo)
   7. You shall not commit adultery (not really a law)
   8. You shall not steal (a law in nearly every society)
   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 first four "laws" are prohibited by our constitution.  One is a law in every day life and it is held by groups that have never even heard of the bible.  The notion that the ten commandments are a guideline for American law is a total fallacy and an attempt but Fundamentalist Christians to aggrandize their beliefs, the placement of this monument a testament to that desire.  

And WWJD?  Personally, I think if the Ten Commandments existed in Jesus' time he would have erected a monument of them outside the Roman governmental offices.


I look forward to the challenge and the over turning of this law.  Everyone knows, or should know, that numerous cases have held such things unconstitutional in this context.  It will be challenged and we the people will pay to defend it and then pay to have it removed.  Can you honestly imagine these ingrates allowing a monument to be erected they disagree with?  If the guidelines is 10% of the passage has something to do with a real law - that leaves the door wide open to just about anything.

 It is pure political grandstanding and the notion that this monument is somehow similar to the one in Texas is absurd.  If the idiot really doesn't understand that (http://www.newsok.com/challenge-to-oklahoma-statue-doubted/article/3367652), then may God help the State of Oklahoma.

But really, this has nothing to do with religion.  We are "erecting the Ten Commandments monument to recognize the historical basis for "our rule of law" and nothing else. " (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090330_298_0_OKLAHO818467)

(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2009/20090508_Plante20090508.jpg)
Tulsaworld.com
(originally probably would have been in Egyptian, then Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or Latin in the time of Jesus.  But nonetheless.)












Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: CharlieSheen on May 08, 2009, 09:41:33 am
Cannon...

You should just copy paste that into an e-mail or text file to repost in another 5 years when it comes up again.  (Tulsanow Forum might delete their archive or something)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on May 08, 2009, 09:52:33 am
(http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n176/JamesBIsMe/pissed-jesus.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on May 08, 2009, 09:55:59 am
Damned right Cannon. I am going to burn all the money in my wallet because it has "In God We Trust" on it and demand that the Declaration of Independence be ruled unconstitutional (that whole "endowed by our Creator nonsense).


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on May 08, 2009, 09:57:43 am
Where are the monuments to Code of Hammurabi or John Locke? They have more to do with the Constitution and our laws than the Ten Commandments. Other than a few remaining blue laws the only commandments that have any relationship to modern American law are don’t lie, steal or murder. And those weren’t exactly groundbreaking social boundaries who were first thought of in the bible.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: buckeye on May 08, 2009, 10:13:51 am
I've come to believe that at least three quarters of everything any politician does is "pure political grandstanding" and just about as relevant as Michael Moore.  Maybe less.

By the by, the first two examples (Jeremiah and Ezekiel) are a metaphor and part of a prophetic vision, respectively.  They're not consistent with the rest of your post.

Amazing this passed by such an overwhelming majority.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 08, 2009, 11:07:20 am
By the by, the first two examples (Jeremiah and Ezekiel) are a metaphor and part of a prophetic vision, respectively.  They're not consistent with the rest of your post.

In the text they are the words and revelations of God that was passed to Jeremiah that was then told to the people of Jerusalem (the first one).  Why are those less reliable than visions Mosses had on a mountain?  Are you suggesting some portions of the bible are literal and should be followed and that others are merely visions that prophets had and perhaps they really didn't hear Gods voice and thus don't need be followed?  How can the Oklahoma legislature tell them apart?

Oh dear.  (I understand the spirit of your post, so this really isn't directed at you)


Guido:

We put "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our money after the civil war so future generations wouldn't think we were a Godless nation.  We added "Under God" to the pledge to distinguish ourselves from those Godless communists.  Both are an insertion of religion into governmental affairs for no reason other than to insert religion into governmental affairs.  Hence, both would today be properly banned.

However, as you well know, long standing traditions are exempted.  The vast majority of people do not understand the meaning behind those things or where they came from.  They are just sentiments and have no real meaning.  Easily distinguished under Supreme Court cases from the proposed monument.

Per the Declaration of Independence, that was before the constitutional separation of church and state and wasn't even an action of our government.  So it really isn't relavant.  But pretending it is . . . the statement "endowed by our creator" is far less biased than a monument depicting sayings of one portion of a particular faith.   Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Wikkans, Satanists, Native American, Egyptian, Ancient Greek, Roman . . . nearly every religion has a Creator or a comparable creation myth.  Even an atheist can often be convinced to acquiesce the notion that there could be a creator of some kind.  There is a difference between a creator and a god and yet another step towards religion.

I note you did not attempt to refute any of the substance of my argument. Such as arguing that is isn't religious or that the 10 Commandments are a foundation of American Law.  Or argue against the relatively recent Supreme Court cases on point.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: RecycleMichael on May 08, 2009, 11:16:59 am
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


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on May 08, 2009, 11:20:12 am
I think if these nitwits realized all these "God" quotes on money and the commandments, etc weren't Jesus Christ they'd rethink their position.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on May 08, 2009, 11:42:11 am
We have debated the issue already CF and neither of us will convince the other what's right (I also did not want to offend Townsend by writing long posts). I am curious what Supreme Court opinion you are referring to? Because in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 678, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 2856-2857 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court explained in its syllabus:

[T]he analysis [for determining whether a church and state question is at issue] should be driven by both the monument's nature and the Nation's history. From at least 1789, there has been an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of religion's role in American life. Texas' display of the Commandments on government property is typical of such acknowledgments. Representations of the Commandments appear throughout this Court and its grounds, as well as the Nation's Capital. Moreover, the Court's opinions, like its building, have recognized the role the Decalogue plays in America's heritage. SeeWhile the Commandments are religious, they have an undeniable historical meaning. Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. There are, of course, limits to the government's display of religious messages or symbols. For example, this Court held unconstitutional a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public schoolroom.  However, neither Stone itself nor subsequent opinions have indicated that Stone's holding would extend beyond the context of public schools to a legislative chamber or to capitol grounds. Texas' placement of the Commandments monument on its capitol grounds is a far more passive use of those texts than was the case in Stone, where the text confronted elementary school students every day. Indeed, petitioner here apparently walked by the monument for years before bringing this suit. Texas has treated its capitol grounds monuments as representing several strands in the State's political and legal history. The inclusion of the Commandments monument in this group has a dual significance, partaking of both religion and government, that cannot be said to violate the Establishment Clause.

[Internal citations omitted]. Accord, Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Ga., 547 F.3d 1263, 1277 (11th Cir. (Ga.) 2008); O'Connor v. Washburn University, 416 F.3d 1216, 1228-1229 (10th Cir. (Kan.) 2005).

Oh, and here is  a published federal district court opinion in a case regarding a 10 Commandments monument just down the street in Haskell, Green v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Haskell, 450 F.Supp.2d 1273, 1297 (E.D.Okla. 2006). In Green, the Court concluded:

[H]askell County did not overstep the constitutional line demarcating government neutrality towards religion. Plaintiffs' request for injunctive and other relief is DENIED. The Monument does not violate the Establishment Clause and may remain on the courthouse lawn, peacefully and passively resting among the other monuments under the stars.

While I appreciate and respect your point of view on this matter, from a legal perspective, you've brought a knife to a gunfight. Now I have not seen what this monument looks like and it could be such as to offend the 1st amendment and Van Orden. But if it's purpose is secular, it stays.





:





Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: FOTD on May 08, 2009, 11:48:05 am
The devil's loving this action.

Wow. With seven million jobs needed to return to pre-recession employment levels, Oklahoma will not be a priority for new hiring under these new living conditions.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 08, 2009, 12:25:55 pm
But if it's purpose is secular, it stays.

I believe this statement is disingenuous.   You are walking up to someones house and see a copy of the 10 Commandments etched into their walkway, do you think "Wow, this man is a real buff for legal history."  My guess is you assume it is a good Christian household and no legal thoughts pop up.

As I illustrated above, the Ten Commandments have very little if any foundational value for American Law.  Of the thousands of "laws" in the bible few equate to laws in our secular nation.  Of the 10 we want to memorialize there is no indication that any have served as inspiration for our laws above what any other cultures laws would suggest. 

Per the case law, it is all about CONTEXT.  They make it clear that the monument must be in a context of secular laws.  The religious icons on the SCOTUS building and around DC are offset by images of scales of justice, Confucius, Solon, Lady Liberty, Octavian, Napoleon, Hammurabi, Greek gods, and the much hyped "10 Commandments" tablets are NOT the 10 commandments but an illustration of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) according to the person who created the sculptures (and in any event the text of the commandments is not shown).  Hell, even Mohamed appears on the walls in Washington DC (not a new addition mind you).  It is a THEME of the origin of laws And I agree that ancient religious codes fit into that theme.   It was always easier to get people to follow the rules if you told them a sky man would kill them if they didn't.


Per the Texas Case:

The monument in Texas was donated in 1961 and is part of a 22 acre site devoted to sources of inspiration for our nation's laws (it was a Fraternal Order of Eagles monument).  The display in its entirety has a purpose other than an expression of religion and does not favor one religion over another.  It was not paid for by the state and any group that meets a set of criteria can donate a monument.

This is a monument to the Protestant Christian religion (different version of the 10 Commandments for Protestant, Christian, Jew and Muslim) displayed by itself by the State on public ground that will stand alone.  It has no context that gives it anything other than a religious meaning.   Try as the legislature might to make it look non-religious, a monument of religious verse on the lawn is inherently religious.



Quote
The 22 acres surrounding the Texas State Capitol contain 17 monuments and 21 historical markers commemorating the "people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity." Tex. H. Con. Res. 38, 77th Leg. (2001).1 The monolith challenged here stands 6-feet high and 3-feet wide. It is located to the north of the Capitol building, between the Capitol and the Supreme Court building. Its primary content is the text of the Ten Commandments. An eagle grasping the American flag, an eye inside of a pyramid, and two small tablets with what appears to be an ancient script are carved above the text of the Ten Commandments. Below the text are two Stars of David and the superimposed Greek letters Chi and Rho, which represent Christ. The bottom of the monument bears the inscription "PRESENTED TO THE PEOPLE AND YOUTH OF TEXAS BY THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES OF TEXAS 1961."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1500


Similarly, in the Haskell decision the monument was a long standing part of a themed display. 

He just tried to copy everything the Texas case had.  However, he can not change the fact that the Texas monument was donated in 1961 unsolicited by a non-religious organization and placed in a greater context.  Attempting to copy the "text that was on the monument in the Texas case" that was legal simply won't work (it says "presented to the People and Youth of Texas by... 1961").  You also can't just say "oh yeah, we will make a display."   



Listen, we can cut to the chase here.  Ignoring all the legal arguments because with the current court it could cut either way.  Here is the basis of my complaint:

The monument is being erected to espouse Christianity. 

Plain and simple.  That's the reason to put that monument up.  They didn't choose the manga carta, a monument to the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, the code of Hammorabi, or a host of other things that have far more relevance in a secular societies laws.  They chose a quote from the protestant bible.

I think it is what I see as the disingenuous nature of the argument from the legislature that irritates me so much.   


I'm coming at this openly admitting I don't think religion should be a driving force in government.  You openly admit that a theocracy would be preferred.  I can discuss the issue with you because you are at least open about your position.  It's pretending this isn't a religious issue that is really annoying.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on May 08, 2009, 01:01:21 pm
    
Public money to defend private donations?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=12563.0

Broken Arrow Representative Mike Ritze wants a Ten Commandments monument at the capitol, and tax dollars used to fight the court battles when it's legality is challenged.

The AP story says Ritze wants there to be a reminder of where the state gets its laws and of the philosophy the nation's founders had.

Wouldnt white bedsheets have been cheaper?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on May 08, 2009, 01:02:42 pm
Theocracy, where did you get that from? I am a Catholic conservative that has no problem with our government officials expressing the notion that this country was founded upon a Judeo-Christian ethic.

As for your attempt to distinguish Oklahoma from the holdings in the overwhelming number of cases where 10 Commandments monuments were held secular because it is being funded with public money is unavailing. First, implicit in your last post was your concession that the supreme court has found that having these monuments does not offend the 1st amendment per se.  In reading these opinions, the fact that these monuments may have been donated by private parties was not a dispositive factor underlying these decisions. Indeed, the fact that they may have been donated does not dispense with the fact that they are on public property and public money is being used to maintain that property.

The true test is whether there is a secular purpose for the monument. In this case, I just don't know. I mean, is there a secular purpose for putting crosses or stars of David on the graves of fallen soldiers in national cemetaries? What about cities named Las Cruces, St. Louis, Cathedral City CA, Bethlehem GA and so on? Should we change their names because those are plainly references to Christianity.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: FOTD on May 08, 2009, 01:13:02 pm
Theocracy, where did you get that from? I am a Catholic conservative that has no problem with our government officials expressing the notion that this country was founded upon a Judeo-Christian ethic.

As for your attempt to distinguish Oklahoma from the holdings in the overwhelming number of cases where 10 Commandments monuments were held secular because it is being funded with public money is unavailing. First, implicit in your last post was your concession that the supreme court has found that having these monuments does not offend the 1st amendment per se.  In reading these opinions, the fact that these monuments may have been donated by private parties was not a dispositive factor underlying these decisions. Indeed, the fact that they may have been donated does not dispense with the fact that they are on public property and public money is being used to maintain that property.

The true test is whether there is a secular purpose for the monument. In this case, I just don't know. I mean, is there a secular purpose for putting crosses or stars of David on the graves of fallen soldiers in national cemetaries? What about cities named Las Cruces, St. Louis, Cathedral City CA, Bethlehem GA and so on? Should we change their names because those are plainly references to Christianity.

"I mean" and mean people suck!

Your arguments reek of gamesmanship, dishonesty, and selfishness.

NO GUIDO, YOU NEVER KNOW.




Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 08, 2009, 04:44:44 pm
Theocracy, where did you get that from? I am a Catholic conservative that has no problem with our government officials expressing the notion that this country was founded upon a Judeo-Christian ethic.

As for your attempt to distinguish Oklahoma from the holdings in the overwhelming number of cases where 10 Commandments monuments were held secular because it is being funded with public money is unavailing. First, implicit in your last post was your concession that the supreme court has found that having these monuments does not offend the 1st amendment per se.  In reading these opinions, the fact that these monuments may have been donated by private parties was not a dispositive factor underlying these decisions. Indeed, the fact that they may have been donated does not dispense with the fact that they are on public property and public money is being used to maintain that property.

The true test is whether there is a secular purpose for the monument. In this case, I just don't know. I mean, is there a secular purpose for putting crosses or stars of David on the graves of fallen soldiers in national cemetaries? What about cities named Las Cruces, St. Louis, Cathedral City CA, Bethlehem GA and so on? Should we change their names because those are plainly references to Christianity.

Perhaps I was thinking of another poster on the theocracy issue.  It was in a previous discussion on this topic and I mentally attributed it to you.  Or perhaps it was tongue in cheek and my sarcasm-o-meter is defective.  I readily disagree with the Judeo-Christian notion of our founding (reference the agnostics, atheists, and deists that were the most prominent founders) and would suggest instead that it was a nation of Christians.  The ethics espoused to be of a Judeo-Christian origin are present in many other cultures throughout the world.  But I digress . . .

I agree that public money is not dispositive of the issue.  It is the purpose for which they are placed.  In all instances in which they were upheld they were placed in a broader context and usually done so many years ago.  I am not aware of a similar circumstance in which the 10 Commandments were displayed by themselves by the government and it was held to be Constitutional.

Honestly, do you think this was proposed, passed by the legislature or funded to advocate the history of our laws?  You might be able to find or argue for a secular excuse, but I imagine all parties involved understand what the purpose is.  I again reference walking up to a house that has the Ten Commandments engraved on their door step - no way you would think "a real legal history buff, I wonder what religion these people advocate?" 

But proponents can not be honest about the purpose of the monument because it would make it illegal.  So we will continue having a disingenuous discussion.   If you think the primary purpose is to illustrate our devotion and the importance of Christianity to Oklahoma, then fight to change the law, or at least argue you think there is an argument that it also serves a secondary purpose.  Please explain how a statement that the Christian God is the correct god carved in granite serves a secular purpose.

And no, I am not aware of a secular purpose to putting particular religious emblems on graves.  But those are monuments to that soldier and in accordance with their wishes.  There is no message attached, no bible versus, no bronze age orders from gods.  As you said, it's all about context and purpose.  The purpose of those grave markers is to honor fallen soldiers, a secular purpose.   I believe you can think of plenty of ways to distinguish religious symbols on the graves of soldiers from a granite monument of the ten commandments on the grounds of the Oklahoma Capital.

And the city name argument is absurd.  That isn't even governmental action.  The vast majority of US Cities were founded and named before any government controlled naming of places.  If a settler or explorer (or foreign government) chose to name a place after a saint, I don't think continuing that name has ever been construed as endorsing that religion or even a tolerance, let alone acceptance of their views.

I'll assume those arguments were somewhat tongue in cheek.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on May 08, 2009, 06:57:25 pm
With the exception of the Las Cruces example, I was using the grave monument and name of city tongue in cheek. As you might recall, just last year the 10th Circuit took up an appeal of a district court decision sustaining a dispositive motion in a case where plaintiffs wanted the Christian symbols (crosses) on city vehicles and in schools removed.  The appellate court affirmed the district court and held that those symbols were secular in nature. Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces, N.M., 541 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. (N.M.) 2008). A similar effort involving the cross in San Diego was defeated in the courts. The point I am making is that in Weinbaum there was "government action", that is the government actually placed religious symbols on  vehicles at taxpayer expense.

Now, is the intent of these legislators to push God in our faces? Who knows, but I can see your point that that was the reason. I just think that it's not that big of a deal. 

Ultimately, that if the monument is not over the top with Christian bells and whistles, it will survive a constitutional scrutiny. That's the only real point I was making in this thread. Do you agree?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: FOTD on May 08, 2009, 07:04:35 pm
Two too many lawyers playing debate.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on May 08, 2009, 07:30:15 pm
Two too many lawyers playing debate.

One idiot playing with himself.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: buckeye on May 09, 2009, 09:26:46 am
Quote
In the text they are the words and revelations of God that was passed to Jeremiah that was then told to the people of Jerusalem (the first one).  Why are those less reliable than visions Mosses had on a mountain?  Are you suggesting some portions of the bible are literal and should be followed and that others are merely visions that prophets had and perhaps they really didn't hear Gods voice and thus don't need be followed?  How can the Oklahoma legislature tell them apart?
...just to throw a "ME TOO!" usage of 'disingenuous' into the burning wreckage, surely this quote fits the bill.  If it's not disingenuous, it's frankly foolish.

Decalogue = divine laws presented via prophet for direct use by the unwashed masses, specific and immediately applicable for mundane activities.  The other two aren't less reliable or not divinely sourced stuff, they have different purposes.  They serve to instruct, but through symbols and imagery and obviously didn't come with the message, "These are My rules that you must follow."

Quote
...it is all about CONTEXT.
Yes indeed it is.  That quote works in spite of itself.

I don't want to really get involved with this .. discussion (maybe it's too late), but you can't really be serious with the above paragraph.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Breadburner on May 10, 2009, 07:18:09 pm
One idiot playing with himself.

Lol.....


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 11, 2009, 07:31:31 am
Buckeye:

My point is that some laws in the bible are supposed to be followed, others are not.  Followers are free to decide which to follow as they see fit.  Do you keep kosher?  Mix fabrics?  Eye for an eye (or did God change his mind and we now turn the other cheek)? There are over a thousands "laws" in the bible, the vast majority of which American Christians have decided we don't need.  Laws that you get to pick and choose from aren't really laws.  Biblical "laws" are dictations on how that prophet/savior/god wants his followers to live. 

1.  I am the Lord Thy God, you shall have no Gods before me.

This is the most important commandment.  The sole purpose is to mandate belief in the principal God before any other Gods (please note:  it is not a monotheistic statement).  It is in no way secular. 

Presumably, if one rejects this statements the following laws do not apply.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: PonderInc on May 11, 2009, 02:22:20 pm
My neighbor has a nice a_s...and I covet it.

Is that illegal in Oklahoma, now that our State Legislature has declared Sharia Law?  (Or was that the Taliban?  I'm getting confused!)

Democracy, theocracy...they both end in "-ocracy." 

I find it is so hard to keep things separate if they rhyme!


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on May 11, 2009, 03:05:21 pm
Buckeye:

My point is that some laws in the bible are supposed to be followed, others are not.  Followers are free to decide which to follow as they see fit.  Do you keep kosher?  Mix fabrics?  Eye for an eye (or did God change his mind and we now turn the other cheek)? There are over a thousands "laws" in the bible, the vast majority of which American Christians have decided we don't need.  Laws that you get to pick and choose from aren't really laws.  Biblical "laws" are dictations on how that prophet/savior/god wants his followers to live. 

1.  I am the Lord Thy God, you shall have no Gods before me.

This is the most important commandment.  The sole purpose is to mandate belief in the principal God before any other Gods (please note:  it is not a monotheistic statement).  It is in no way secular. 

Presumably, if one rejects this statements the following laws do not apply.



Just wanted to point out that the eye for an eye referance is often taken out of context.  It is actually the teachings of jesus saying that you should not take an eye for an eye, but instead should turn the other cheek (just wish I could remember the passage). Just wanted to clear up this often misunderdstood quote. Now I return to the regularly scheduled program...

There is only one source for the Ten Commandments, and that is the Bible.  By the government placeing this monument, and only this monument, it is endorsing this religion.  Especially when it is a monument COMMANDING you to only have that one god (though I actually will argue what that command means, but this isn't about religous philosophy). 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: FOTD on May 11, 2009, 03:19:19 pm
Lol.....


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 11, 2009, 03:55:51 pm
Just wanted to point out that the eye for an eye referance is often taken out of context.  It is actually the teachings of jesus saying that you should not take an eye for an eye, but instead should turn the other cheek (just wish I could remember the passage). Just wanted to clear up this often misunderdstood quote.

exodus 21:23-21:25
23If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

leviticus 24:18-24:20
18Anyone who kills an animal shall make restitution for it, life for life. 19Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: 20fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered.

deuteronomy 19:21-19:21
21Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

The Greeks referred to such laws as Lex Talionis.

Certainly it predated the teachings of Jesus (who, arguably, rescinded the teaching with turn the other cheek. Hence the reference). 
matthew 5:38-5:39
38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;.

It is also in Luke and in the Jewish law before that: "Let him give his cheek to him that smiteth him, let him be filled full with reproach."  (Jewish Lamentations were teachings outside of the Torah ).

There are alternative takes on the meaning of "turning the other cheek."  In Bronze Age middle eastern cultures, you would strike someone with the left hand to show them they are lesser than you are (a [female dog] slap).  If you turned the other cheek you would be issuing a challenge to actually hit you (you can not backhand the "other cheek" with your dirty left hand), therefor either issuing a challenge and/or admitting that you are an equal worthy of a fight.  Thereby creating an un-winnable situation for the aggressor (which would be in line with subsequent non-violent methods). 

And still another interpretation was that he was rejecting people personally taking it on to engage tit-for-tat in revenge.  Basically either Karma will get them (presumably God) or let the authorities administer the justice code.

But like most ancient writings that we like, we are happy to take it at face value if it serves out purpose.  If it doesn't serve our purpose then it is antiquated, a metaphor, or misinterpreted.  Personally, I think the 1st Alternative is the most likely and most interesting interpretation.  Seems like something Ghandi or MLK would have advocated.



I'm not a Biblical scholar so feel free to point out my errors.  But in this respect, I think I covered by bases.

[edit] Added different interpretations [/edit]



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: FOTD on May 11, 2009, 04:20:06 pm
Year of the Bible? Something Funny Here

http://allspinzone.com/wp/2009/05/11/year-of-the-bible-something-funny-here/


The wingnut base of the Republican party strikes again. Just watch those godless liberals vote the bible out of our nation. No wonder we're spiraling towards Armageddon, the liberals won't let the word of god guide our nation....
Hogwash.

Forget it, thugs, the people whose votes you'll win by this tactic already vote for you.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on May 11, 2009, 05:26:44 pm
exodus 21:23-21:25
23If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

leviticus 24:18-24:20
18Anyone who kills an animal shall make restitution for it, life for life. 19Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: 20fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered.

deuteronomy 19:21-19:21
21Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

The Greeks referred to such laws as Lex Talionis.

Certainly it predated the teachings of Jesus (who, arguably, rescinded the teaching with turn the other cheek. Hence the reference). 
matthew 5:38-5:39
38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;.

It is also in Luke and in the Jewish law before that: "Let him give his cheek to him that smiteth him, let him be filled full with reproach."  (Jewish Lamentations were teachings outside of the Torah ).

There are alternative takes on the meaning of "turning the other cheek."  In Bronze Age middle eastern cultures, you would strike someone with the left hand to show them they are lesser than you are (a [female dog] slap).  If you turned the other cheek you would be issuing a challenge to actually hit you (you can not backhand the "other cheek" with your dirty left hand), therefor either issuing a challenge and/or admitting that you are an equal worthy of a fight.  Thereby creating an un-winnable situation for the aggressor (which would be in line with subsequent non-violent methods). 

And still another interpretation was that he was rejecting people personally taking it on to engage tit-for-tat in revenge.  Basically either Karma will get them (presumably God) or let the authorities administer the justice code.

But like most ancient writings that we like, we are happy to take it at face value if it serves out purpose.  If it doesn't serve our purpose then it is antiquated, a metaphor, or misinterpreted.  Personally, I think the 1st Alternative is the most likely and most interesting interpretation.  Seems like something Ghandi or MLK would have advocated.



I'm not a Biblical scholar so feel free to point out my errors.  But in this respect, I think I covered by bases.

[edit] Added different interpretations [/edit]



I stand grandly corrected.   I hadn't come across the old testiment referances to this.  A falasy that tends to come about when you think of the old testiment being ignored for 98% of the rules that were laid down in it.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: buckeye on May 12, 2009, 09:37:33 am
Let's talk context again...

That part of the chapter stresses selflessness, generosity and honoring your commitments.  The advice is consistently, "take your lumps; see your enemy as a human being and treat him as such".  "Only accept a challenge that does not insult your honor" would be grossly out of place.  In fact, given the tone of the surrounding admonishments, the advice is more likely, "-don't- get bent out of shape if you're hit with somebody's left hand."

The general idea is that the old testament rules (The Letter) have been replaced by the new testament grace (The Spirit), e.g. 2nd Corinthians 3.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 12, 2009, 10:42:50 am
First, I disagree that Jesus was all about peace love and harmony.  I agree that is the image most choose to accept and that compared to the old God he is super.  I am also happy we choose a loving God over a spiteful vindictive and jealous god.  But the New Testament is rather explicit about what happens when Jesus returns to earth, and it fails to live up to the peace and love attributed (something like 99.99% of people cast into hell by the most ardent estimates, still something like 80% by most estimates).  There are plenty of references that seem out of place for a person devoted to Love:

But why take my arguments on the topic?
(citations to King James, http://www.biblegateway.com)

Quote
Jesus Said
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:17.  It goes on to say that you shouldn't break even one of the least commandments. 

Quote
Jesus Said
And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:26.  Describing how God kicked Lots butt and will continue to kick butt in the time of the Son of Man.

Quote
Jesus said
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27. Presumably he wants to have them killed out of compassion, mercy and love.

Quote
Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction . . . .
2 Thessalonians: 6-9.  Flaming fire vengeance from our new loving God on anyone that worships differently.  Isn't jealousy a sin and vengeance so Old Testament?

Hebrews has tons of things on casting people to perdition and how we should fear our living God.  Revelations is nothing but loving God destroying things.  But how are we to know?  Even the Bible frequently talks about God sending delusions, false prophets, and messages in parables so distorted that people won't be able to properly understand them (and will therefor be damned).  Personally, if a teacher intentionally made things confusing and flunked me, I'd be pissed.

In any event.  It is clear that Jesus unconditionally loves people who believe he is the Son of a God, a quasi God himself and do what he tells them to.  Well, he loves the other people too but hopes they are brought before him and killed and eventually he will return to Earth and cast them into a pit of eternal fire to suffer a most unimaginable fate for all time.  Which really screws with my definition of unconditional and how you treat people you love.  Frankly, loving people and treating them well when they do what you tell them to isn't that amazing to me.


But if we want to revert to the argument that the new God is a loving God:

So God changed his mind on some of the rules over the course of a couple thousand year.  Now we are a couple thousand year removed from Jesus.  Have those rules subsequently changed?  And doesn't it seem strange that a perfect deity would need to revise his teachings (or is it because the perfect being created imperfect man in his image?) in what to him would be the blink of an eye?  And if the New God is different than the Old God, why keep the Old Testament around when much of it is admittedly chronically horrible acts by/in the name of God?

You are reading into the context of a bronze age text that has been revised, redacted, and translated hundreds of times by men - often with open political motives.  Certainly a difficult task for scholars and open to multiple interpretations.   And given the number of interpretations it is highly likely that it is often incorrect.  Which seems a dangerous thing to live by.

I understanding the theory.  Old God was wrathful and liked to spite entire villages and his most ardent followers on a whim (or to prove how cool he was to an underling/Satan).  New God is happy-go lucky and isn't cool with the things the old God told people to do.  But Jesus never revoked or even spoke out against the vast majority of the laws (including slavery, as The South pointed our ad nasuem).  Hence, some of the old rules still apply (10 Commandments) but others do not (mixing cloth, stoning people) - and each sect gets to decide which apply and how to interpret them. 

But that kind of goes to the heart of the argument, we are choosing portions of laws handed down by a God that are still adhered to by a certain religious faith.   To the Jews God never did away with their laws.  To some fundamentalist Christians many of the old laws still apply.  Even the version of the 10 Commandments isn't agreed upon by Protestants, Catholics, Jews or Muslims.

And none of that goes to the fact that most of the Biblical Laws are not laws in our secular society.  Most notable the key one (belief in that particular God).  Given all that confusion and the underlying problems, a monument to the 10 Commandments as a basis for anything seems inappropriate


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: rwarn17588 on May 12, 2009, 10:48:00 am
^ +1

An exceedingly good and well-thought-out argument. Did anyone suggest to you that you ought to go into the law profession?  ;)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: FOTD on May 12, 2009, 10:58:46 am
Sorry Sparty, but the demon just can't grok gawd's shock. Must be grounded.

Religulousness and churchianity do serve a good purpose when they stay out of our government.

Did not really understand the draw until Charlie Hayden emotionally produced on his non jazz cd, "Jesus, I don't want'a die alone."
 
Hmmmm, maybe Mike Ritze and his wingnuts need to see the huge numbers of agnostics and atheists raising their children  to be as good if not better for society than their sheeples.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbYYOoDlNZc[/youtube]





Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: buckeye on May 13, 2009, 10:15:45 am
Trouble comes in when trying to assign human motivations and understanding to God's actions, I'd say.  Who are we to question His designs?  In other other, so what if he changed His mind - as if one data point is basis for a trend, etc.

I didn't intend to expand this thread into this kind of discussion, rather to point out what I viewed as a couple weak points in your argument.  But it didn't stick - as Luke 19:27 is the end of a parable and you've made only a very cursory attempt at interpretation, as before...

The subject of God's wrath surely is a sticky one, and once again - I don't understand how anybody can claim to understand God's motivations or rationale - that's bald-faced hubris.

In any case, I don't disagree with your point necessarily and really don't understand why the legislature passed the bill.  Political bluster, I suppose, pandering to the church crowd.  Well frankly, I resent pandering.

One thing I'll yield for sure, the reading of an ancient document translated through several languages, etc. etc. is full of pitfalls and room for differing interpretations.

FOTD, I'm not sure...but I think if your post made more sense, I'd be offended.  :P


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: rwarn17588 on May 13, 2009, 10:50:28 am

Hmmmm, maybe Mike Ritze and his wingnuts need to see the huge numbers of agnostics and atheists raising their children  to be as good if not better for society than their sheeples.


Interesting video. Well, not really.

My exposure to that song came from Johnny Cash, which takes on a whole 'nother context when the Man in Black sings it:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7_kpLa3fyI[/youtube]


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: FOTD on May 13, 2009, 11:11:37 am
Good one rwarn....thanks.

Cash was an American icon.

Ohio, cryptic is the devils way of communicating.

Especially, when it comes to Okie religious themes. Gotta read between the lines. Sorta what people do with the word of gawd.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 13, 2009, 12:29:51 pm
Well Buckeye, I guess that's where the crux of the difference is.  I see things in the Bible that don't make sense, that conflict with each other,  or are patently false.  I see behavior in a loving God that I would be shocked to see from my enemies.  Instead of saying "oh well, probably something I just don't understand" and continuing on my merry way I ask why it would be that way.  The answer inevitably boils down to not questioning the book/God and just have faith and move on.

Religion is the only place in the modern world were ignorance is considered a virtue.  If you carefully read the Bible you will necessarily see these problems, but the more ignorant you are and the more willing to accept things without question, the more rewarded you will be.    Which to me is a huge red flag.  Either the book is in error, or God is an irrational being (at least from the human perspective).  In the former case one must distrust the entirety of the book, in the latter we can't claim to really know what God wants of us or if God has/did/or will change his mind. 

Hence, it is a matter of faith.  Faith being entirely antagonistic to logic.  And logic being a requisite to the just rule of law.   Which brings us back to my problem with posting faith based religious rules as an underlying doctrine behind the law of the land.

Good discussion.  We'll just wait and see what happens.

(and I realize I truncated my references, I get accused of writing novels [and how] so I am attempting to be brief)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: okcpulse on May 13, 2009, 10:35:48 pm
Well Buckeye, I guess that's where the crux of the difference is.  I see things in the Bible that don't make sense, that conflict with each other,  or are patently false.  I see behavior in a loving God that I would be shocked to see from my enemies.  Instead of saying "oh well, probably something I just don't understand" and continuing on my merry way I ask why it would be that way.  The answer inevitably boils down to not questioning the book/God and just have faith and move on.

Religion is the only place in the modern world were ignorance is considered a virtue.  If you carefully read the Bible you will necessarily see these problems, but the more ignorant you are and the more willing to accept things without question, the more rewarded you will be.    Which to me is a huge red flag.  Either the book is in error, or God is an irrational being (at least from the human perspective).  In the former case one must distrust the entirety of the book, in the latter we can't claim to really know what God wants of us or if God has/did/or will change his mind. 

Hence, it is a matter of faith.  Faith being entirely antagonistic to logic.  And logic being a requisite to the just rule of law.   Which brings us back to my problem with posting faith based religious rules as an underlying doctrine behind the law of the land.

Good discussion.  We'll just wait and see what happens.

(and I realize I truncated my references, I get accused of writing novels [and how] so I am attempting to be brief)

Well, I love both of my sons unconditionally, but if one of them were to make a poor choice for their life despite how I raised him, I'm not going to wipe his a$$ for him.  It is his choice, his fate.  And, yeah, I'd be pissed knowing that all of the effort and passion I put into raising him to be a gentleman went down the drain with his choices.  I'd also want to go after the sonofabitch that corrupted him.

He'd suffer the consequences of his choices, and I would always love him, but the path he chose is his cross to bear.  I would always have hope that he'd come around, and I will always be his father regardless, but it is entirely up to him.

Right now, my boys are just toddlers.  I can only hope that I succeed and they will in turn succeed.  I believe God sees the same in all of us.

He loves us unconditionally, but our choices are our cross to bear.  What God's vengeance means remains to be seen. 

And if you haven't seen his unconditional love or vengeance demonstrated personally, I wouldn't rely on the bible as the end-all be-all type of documentation.  Just more of a guidance tool.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on May 14, 2009, 06:41:25 am
Well, I love both of my sons unconditionally, but if one of them were to make a poor choice for their life despite how I raised him, I'm not going to wipe his a$$ for him.  It is his choice, his fate.  And, yeah, I'd be pissed knowing that all of the effort and passion I put into raising him to be a gentleman went down the drain with his choices.  I'd also want to go after the sonofabitch that corrupted him.

He'd suffer the consequences of his choices, and I would always love him, but the path he chose is his cross to bear.  I would always have hope that he'd come around, and I will always be his father regardless, but it is entirely up to him.

Right now, my boys are just toddlers.  I can only hope that I succeed and they will in turn succeed.  I believe God sees the same in all of us.

He loves us unconditionally, but our choices are our cross to bear.  What God's vengeance means remains to be seen. 

And if you haven't seen his unconditional love or vengeance demonstrated personally, I wouldn't rely on the bible as the end-all be-all type of documentation.  Just more of a guidance tool.

As a parent we must make the choice of when to intervien in our childrens lives and when not to.  And yes, this means at times, for the better interest of the children, we let them fall on their face.  However, this is not the same as the context in which cf puts things.  I love my kids, and I have let them fail and pay the price (and the oldest is only 12), however, I do not fire up the stove and tell them I'm going to roast em if they don't do things exactly as I tell them to.  That is the differance here.  As parents, we teach our children with the goal of them succeeding in life.  As an omnipetent being, God throws a tantrum if you don't do it exactly as he wants and punishes you to the extreme for it (as per the bible, particularly the old testiment).  But then, I guess I can start raising my children with the bible as my guide book.  2/3's of the are very misbehaved.  There may not be a chance that I cansave them.  Let me drown the bad ones and let the good one (let's call this good one noah) live.  I'm sure I can so much better with the next batch.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: okcpulse on May 14, 2009, 06:36:57 pm
As a parent we must make the choice of when to intervien in our childrens lives and when not to.  And yes, this means at times, for the better interest of the children, we let them fall on their face.  However, this is not the same as the context in which cf puts things.  I love my kids, and I have let them fail and pay the price (and the oldest is only 12), however, I do not fire up the stove and tell them I'm going to roast em if they don't do things exactly as I tell them to.  That is the differance here.  As parents, we teach our children with the goal of them succeeding in life.  As an omnipetent being, God throws a tantrum if you don't do it exactly as he wants and punishes you to the extreme for it (as per the bible, particularly the old testiment).  But then, I guess I can start raising my children with the bible as my guide book.  2/3's of the are very misbehaved.  There may not be a chance that I cansave them.  Let me drown the bad ones and let the good one (let's call this good one noah) live.  I'm sure I can so much better with the next batch.

I do agree with you, however you do realize all of this discussion is being centered around the Old Testament, which was pretty much thrown out of the window when Jesus was sacrificed.  Right now my cousin is reading the Old Testament.  She thinks laws from the Old Testament are in effect.  God doesn't fire up the stove anymore.  Again, we suffer our own consequences.  We stick our own feet in the fire.  The Old Testament is nothing more than a history lesson to God's law before Christ.  There are certainly valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament, but it is what it is, a history lesson. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on May 18, 2009, 04:04:01 pm
Henry signed the bill

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090518_298_0_OKLAHO112466


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 21, 2009, 07:49:46 am
The Old Testament is nothing more than a history lesson to God's law before Christ. 

Good to know we will have a history lesson from your holy book to your God's law before your Christ reset your religious laws displayed on our governmental grounds.

Remember, it has nothing to do with religion . . .


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on May 21, 2009, 08:21:19 am
I do agree with you, however you do realize all of this discussion is being centered around the Old Testament, which was pretty much thrown out of the window when Jesus was sacrificed.  Right now my cousin is reading the Old Testament.  She thinks laws from the Old Testament are in effect.  God doesn't fire up the stove anymore.  Again, we suffer our own consequences.  We stick our own feet in the fire.  The Old Testament is nothing more than a history lesson to God's law before Christ.  There are certainly valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament, but it is what it is, a history lesson. 

Except of course it's not history.

History: A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events

The Old Testament is a religious teaching text, but as nearly all the events described inside never happened it’s specifically not a history text.

The world was not created in six days, the Red Sea wasn’t parted, there was no 40 day flood, the animals didn’t board an ark two by two, the world is not 6,000 years old and Eve wasn’t sprung from Adam’s rib there was no garden of Eden and no apple. I could go on but that’s a start.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: CharlieSheen on May 21, 2009, 08:44:18 am
Except of course it's not history.

History: A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events

The Old Testament is a religious teaching text, but as nearly all the events described inside never happened it’s specifically not a history text.

The world was not created in six days, the Red Sea wasn’t parted, there was no 40 day flood, the animals didn’t board an ark two by two, the world is not 6,000 years old and Eve wasn’t sprung from Adam’s rib there was no garden of Eden and no apple. I could go on but that’s a start.


This is exactly why our economy is in the crapper.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on May 21, 2009, 09:04:18 am
This is exactly why our economy is in the crapper.
Our economy is in the crapper because people actually take a moment to analize things instead of believing any old fable that is passed on to us?  Gee, and I thought it had a lot to do with a bunch of bad buisness decessions made within the administrations of large corperations (including US gov as a corperation for this particular referance).  Glad we got that all cleared up.  Everyone can stop blaming bush and the greedy CEO's now, and if things don't get back on track it won't be Obama's fault either. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: rwarn17588 on May 21, 2009, 11:28:22 am
Our economy is in the crapper because people actually take a moment to analize things instead of believing any old fable that is passed on to us? 


Huh huh huh huh huh. He said "analize." Huh huh huh huh huh.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on May 22, 2009, 06:56:05 pm
From the Whirled, the bastard tried to pull the plug on educational TV:

"...state Reps. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City, and Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, argued that the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority, the Oklahoma Arts Commission and the Human Rights Commission should be stripped of state funding"


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on May 22, 2009, 07:19:53 pm
From the Whirled, the bastard tried to pull the plug on educational TV:

"...state Reps. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City, and Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, argued that the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority, the Oklahoma Arts Commission and the Human Rights Commission should be stripped of state funding"

Sounds good to me. The first two are not that important given the economy and the last provides a service redundant to the EEOC (although I like the folks down there).


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on May 25, 2009, 04:43:08 pm
Well it's about time. The ACLU suing to tear down crosses honoring war vets:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/25/aclu-dead-wrong-on-cross/

Apparently Jewish and Muslim vets are offended or something



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 26, 2009, 08:13:05 am
For the sake of argument:

They are suing to remove a 7 foot cross on Federal Land that was put up as a memorial to WWI soldiers and want it replaced with a memorial that honors all vets, not just the Christian ones.  The notion that this case has implications into other war monuments is just false.  It would have implications on monuments on public land that are devoted to one religion and purport to honor all Americans.  Furthermore, the argument that the crosses or other symbols are cemeteries would be affected is another false fear.  The headstone at a graveyard is an individual or family choice and does not purport to be governmental nor for all the soldiers/Americans.   I also think the argument that the cross is not really a cross, but is meant to mimic the fallen soldier memorial (rifle in the ground) is another disingenuous argument [just like pretending the 10 Commandment aren't really a religious symbol). 

Not that I'm really invested in this matter at all.  It has been there since 1934 and wasn't really erected by the government.  At this juncture I think there is an argument that the monument is part of the landscape and identity of the space.   I think there is little danger that someone will wonder through the desert and think the National Parks service, Department of Defense, or whomever else is endorsing Christianity. 

However, I also think many of the same people arguing in favor of leaving this cross us would be happy to see it torn down if it was a Crescent Moon.  Religious monuments are great, so long as they are YOUR religious monuments. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on May 26, 2009, 09:58:22 am
This is about some dip-sh!t civil liberties attorney trying to make a name for himself by trying to tear down an historic monument which has been there for 75 years.  This cross wasn't about trying to establish an official government religion, it was about honoring war dead.  This seems to me to have been a free exercise of religion, which our government has no right to restrict.  If Muslim and Jewish folk want to erect their own monuments adjacent to it, fine.  I simply don't believe that you tear down a 75 year old monument just because some ACLU a**hole thinks it might offend 10 or 20 people.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on May 26, 2009, 10:18:54 am
This is about some dip-sh!t civil liberties attorney trying to make a name for himself by trying to tear down an historic monument which has been there for 75 years.  This cross wasn't about trying to establish an official government religion, it was about honoring war dead.  This seems to me to have been a free exercise of religion, which our government has no right to restrict.  If Muslim and Jewish folk want to erect their own monuments adjacent to it, fine.  I simply don't believe that you tear down a 75 year old monument just because some ACLU a**hole thinks it might offend 10 or 20 people.

Yeah CF, what he said!  ;)

I am tired of these BS publicity lawsuits over religious icons that have been in place for generations. I do not see this effort as any different than those that want to change the name of a city because of a Christian reference.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 26, 2009, 01:03:51 pm
And in this instance I largely agree.  But many of the characterizations of this suit are false.  As I said, this one isn't a big issue for me.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on May 26, 2009, 01:36:51 pm
And in this instance I largely agree.  But many of the characterizations of this suit are false.  As I said, this one isn't a big issue for me.

Bad and misleading reporting by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times Newspaper?

Say it isn't so...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on June 09, 2009, 01:39:58 pm
10 Commandments Monument in Haskell ruled to be an unconstitutional State Endorsement of religion.   (http://newsok.com/court-overturns-bible-law-ruling/article/3376271?custom_click=lead_story_title)

The 52 page opinion from the 10th Circuit  voted 3-0, with the Opinion written by a conservative judge from Oklahoma City, to overturn a lower court ruling and held that the monument was an unlawful endorsement of religion by the State.  It failed the Lemon test:

Quote
To pass constitutional muster, a challenged government action must: 1) have a secular legislative purpose, 2) have a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and 3) not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

The Court held that to a reasonable observer the primary purpose of the monument is to advance the Christian Religion in Oklahoma.   Governmental action must not have the effect of enhancing nor prohibiting religion.   Hard to come up with an honest goal accomplished by the monument other than that.  Even if you assume, arguendo, the we are a Christian Nation, the monument serves to reinforce the current status quo religion or allude to the supposed Christian nature of our laws.  Which is another way of saying the monument means Christianity is more important in the United States than any other religion.

To which supporters just said "Hell yes it is."  While probably true, it is not a position the government can advocate.  Which is kinda the point.

The full case can be found at:
10 Circuit Court of Appeals, 06-7098 (http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-7098.pdf)
- - - - - -

Keep in mind the Haskell County monument was on the Courthouse lawn with other long-standing monuments to which the residents of the county deemed their heritage.  It was distinguished from other monument cases because the display was not part of a larger scheme and/or it was challenged before it became an established part of the community. 

The monument in Texas which Oklahoma lawmakers are attempting to mimic was initiated by a private group, placed in a common area with other monuments promoting a common scheme, and not challenged for 60 years.  The Oklahoma monument was dictated by state law, is part of no scheme, and will be challenged very quickly.  Which explains why the "Oklahoma attorney general expects legal challenge to Ten Commandments law. (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20090609_16_0_OKLAHO537920&allcom=1#)" 

Thanks for wasting my tax dollars.

But hey, no need to waste the monument they have already raised funds for.  The vast majority of CHURCHES don't have a 10 Commandments monument in front of them.  Maybe, just maybe, we could put monuments to religion in the yards of religious institutions.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on June 09, 2009, 02:25:35 pm
There is certainly no hypocrisy within the Supreme Court. I guess they haven't looked at their own building(s) in a while.

We cannot escape the fact that our laws were based on Judeo-Christian principals.  This was a philosophy of living in a community and passed through several religions over the last 2,000+ years.  The fact that it has survived as the basis for western law is astonishing. 

Liberals, get your torches and chisels ready, and head to the Supreme Court building, because you have a lot of work to do.  Destroy these graven images.

(http://www.ten-commandments.us/ten_commandments/images/moses_supreme_court.jpg)


Better get up there with a chisel.

Oh, yeah. . . Inside and around the Supreme Court Building and courtrooms.
(http://www.ten-commandments.us/ten_commandments/images/ten_commandments_supreme_court.jpg)


(http://www.heritage-signs.us/ten/images/supreme_court/new_york_supreme_court_ten_commandments.jpg)

(http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/images/us-court-inside.jpg)

(http://www.americanchristianhistory.com/tencommandmentsbronze.jpg)

(http://biblescripture.net/Moses.jpeg)

(http://morallaw.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/supreme-court-tableau.bmp)

(http://10commandments.biz/biz/images/east_frieze_middle3.jpg)

(http://10commandments.biz/biz/images/moses3.jpg)



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on June 09, 2009, 02:33:40 pm
There is certainly no hypocrisy within the Supreme Court. I guess they haven't looked at their own building(s) in a while.

We cannot escape the fact that our laws were based on Judeo-Christian principals.  This was a philosophy of living in a community and passed through several religions over the last 2,000+ years.  The fact that it has survived as the basis for western law is astonishing. 

Liberals, get your torches and chisels ready, and head to the Supreme Court building, because you have a lot of work to do.  Destroy these graven images.

(http://www.ten-commandments.us/ten_commandments/images/moses_supreme_court.jpg)


Better get up there with a chisel.

Oh, yeah. . . Inside and around the Supreme Court Building and courtrooms.
(http://www.ten-commandments.us/ten_commandments/images/ten_commandments_supreme_court.jpg)


(http://www.heritage-signs.us/ten/images/supreme_court/new_york_supreme_court_ten_commandments.jpg)

(http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/images/us-court-inside.jpg)

(http://www.americanchristianhistory.com/tencommandmentsbronze.jpg)

(http://biblescripture.net/Moses.jpeg)

(http://morallaw.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/supreme-court-tableau.bmp)

(http://10commandments.biz/biz/images/east_frieze_middle3.jpg)

(http://10commandments.biz/biz/images/moses3.jpg)



http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: tim huntzinger on June 09, 2009, 02:41:22 pm
I find it interesting that there are more zodiac signs in Washington DC than any other capitol city.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: FOTD on June 09, 2009, 02:41:51 pm
10 Commandments Monument in Haskell ruled to be an unconstitutional State Endorsement of religion.   (http://newsok.com/court-overturns-bible-law-ruling/article/3376271?custom_click=lead_story_title)

The 52 page opinion from the 10th Circuit  voted 3-0, with the Opinion written by a conservative judge from Oklahoma City, to overturn a lower court ruling and held that the monument was an unlawful endorsement of religion by the State.  It failed the Lemon test:

The Court held that to a reasonable observer the primary purpose of the monument is to advance the Christian Religion in Oklahoma.   Governmental action must not have the effect of enhancing nor prohibiting religion.   Hard to come up with an honest goal accomplished by the monument other than that.  Even if you assume, arguendo, the we are a Christian Nation, the monument serves to reinforce the current status quo religion or allude to the supposed Christian nature of our laws.  Which is another way of saying the monument means Christianity is more important in the United States than any other religion.

To which supporters just said "Hell yes it is."  While probably true, it is not a position the government can advocate.  Which is kinda the point.

The full case can be found at:
10 Circuit Court of Appeals, 06-7098 (http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-7098.pdf)
- - - - - -

Keep in mind the Haskell County monument was on the Courthouse lawn with other long-standing monuments to which the residents of the county deemed their heritage.  It was distinguished from other monument cases because the display was not part of a larger scheme and/or it was challenged before it became an established part of the community. 

The monument in Texas which Oklahoma lawmakers are attempting to mimic was initiated by a private group, placed in a common area with other monuments promoting a common scheme, and not challenged for 60 years.  The Oklahoma monument was dictated by state law, is part of no scheme, and will be challenged very quickly.  Which explains why the "Oklahoma attorney general expects legal challenge to Ten Commandments law. (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20090609_16_0_OKLAHO537920&allcom=1#)" 

Thanks for wasting my tax dollars.

But hey, no need to waste the monument they have already raised funds for.  The vast majority of CHURCHES don't have a 10 Commandments monument in front of them.  Maybe, just maybe, we could put monuments to religion in the yards of religious institutions.


One of mine already does and they are real big. Bigger than anyone else's.

It's a house of worship, not a church.

(Devil knows Spartacus and you are not Spartacus)




Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on June 09, 2009, 03:06:02 pm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp


No way...you mean an email about religion and our government is not 100% truthful?  No way.

NO WAY.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on June 09, 2009, 03:22:06 pm
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.

(http://www.wnd.com/images2/oldtext.jpg)
(http://www.wnd.com/images2/tableaux.jpg)

But you're probably right, this image must just be an elderly gentleman carrying the Bill of Rights. . . uh, in Hebrew.
(http://www.wnd.com/images2/moses.jpg)

. . .And this is the image of a man teaching his children to read the Bill of Rights.
(http://www.heritage-signs.us/ten/images/supreme_court/new_york_supreme_court_ten_commandments.jpg)

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


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on June 09, 2009, 03:36:17 pm
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.wnd.com/images2/moses.jpg)

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


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on June 09, 2009, 03:38:10 pm
Oh yeah, and I forgot, this is not Mohamed and the Koran.
It's just some guy with a book full of scribbles.

(http://www.wnd.com/images2/muhammadcourt.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on June 09, 2009, 03:38:51 pm
Oh yeah, and I forgot, this is not Mohamed and the Koran.
It's just some guy with a book full of scribbles.

(http://www.wnd.com/images2/muhammadcourt.jpg)

So we are a Muslim country


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on June 09, 2009, 03:48:01 pm
So we are a Muslim country

By weight, not volume.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on June 09, 2009, 03:49:30 pm
By weight, not volume.

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


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on June 09, 2009, 04:32:50 pm
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.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on June 09, 2009, 06:25:24 pm
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.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Bledsoe on June 10, 2009, 07:33:37 am
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


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on June 10, 2009, 08:41:31 am
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.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: brianh on June 10, 2009, 10:49:58 am
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. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on June 10, 2009, 10:57:34 am
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.

Quote
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).


Quote
"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:
Quote
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)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: FOTD on June 10, 2009, 01:46:44 pm
Great toon in TW ....sez it all!


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on June 10, 2009, 02:37:05 pm
Great toon in TW ....sez it all!

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


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: kylieosu on June 10, 2009, 02:53:32 pm
Great toon in TW ....sez it all!

HAHA! Love it.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on November 15, 2012, 04:40:25 pm
The Ten Commandments have been installed.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Vashta Nerada on November 15, 2012, 07:28:51 pm
Quote
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK- - A Ten Commandments monument unveiled at the state capitol Thursday comes with a mistake.  The 6-foot-tall monument has the word "Sabbath" spelled "Sabbeth."
However local pastors and online sources all show Sabbath spelled with an "a" and not an "e."
The word "maidservant" also appears misspelled.  The "v" appears to be a "u," spelling the word "maidseruant."

The monument was unveiled three years after state lawmakers approved the bill that would allow the monument to be erected on capitol grounds.
The measure was signed into law by Governor Brad Henry, despite arguments that it violates provisions of the state and U.S. constitutions that prohibit laws expressing a religious preference.
However other Oklahomans argued that the monument is about our nation’s heritage.

Fox 25 contacted State Representative Mike Ritze, who paid $10,000 for the monument.  Rep. Ritze told us he saw prototypes before the monument was erected, but did not see the final version.
He first came up with the idea of erecting a monument, after seeing a similar monument at the state capitol in Texas.
Rep. Ritz said Tulsa-based SI Memorials made the monument.  Fox 25 tried calling the business, but it was already closed for the day.

(http://www.okcfox.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos//images/commandments_Q6Uf2.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on November 16, 2012, 05:44:36 am
They can't even spell it right.  LOL.

(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/14258_10150260308869990_374105790_n.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: carltonplace on November 16, 2012, 07:56:23 am
"I bring you these Tin Commendments!"


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on November 16, 2012, 09:22:05 am
They can't even spell it right.  LOL.


Hey, if that's the way Jesus spelled the 10 commandments, then that should be okay with everyone.  Especially everyone who couldn't tell you what the 10 commandments are.

So sayeth the prophesies. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Ed W on November 16, 2012, 10:27:26 am
So, what are the ten condiments?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on November 16, 2012, 10:34:58 am
So, what are the ten condiments?

An entertaining Demille movie.  That's about it.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: carltonplace on November 16, 2012, 12:44:37 pm
So, what are the ten condiments?

Thou shalt not ketchup thy neighbor's wife.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on November 16, 2012, 12:46:44 pm
Lawsuits Possible over 10 Commandments Monument

http://kwgs.com/post/llawsuits-possible-over-10-commandments-monument (http://kwgs.com/post/llawsuits-possible-over-10-commandments-monument)

Quote
TULSA, Okla. (AP) — Some state and national civil rights groups say legal action is possible over a monument of the Ten Commandments that was installed Thursday on the Oklahoma state Capitol grounds.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, says her Wisconsin-based group would be interested in bringing a lawsuit. Ryan Kiesel, the director of Oklahoma's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, says case law would be on his group's side if it decided to sue.

State Rep. Mike Ritze, whose family paid $10,000 for the monument's construction, says tax dollars wouldn't be used to defend a legal challenge because the Liberty Legal Foundation will cover all costs.

The Republican-controlled Legislature authorized the privately funded monument in 2009, and former Democratic Gov. Brad Henry signed the bill into law.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: godboko71 on November 16, 2012, 01:56:05 pm
Lawsuits sound like a waste of time and money for all parties involved. Lets waste money in a more productive way like privately founding monuments to other religions at the state capital.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on November 16, 2012, 01:58:43 pm
Lawsuits sound like a waste of time and money for all parties involved. Lets waste money in a more productive way like privately founding monuments to other religions at the state capital.

Then there will be more lawsuits to remove them like there were to remove Ganesha from the Tulsa Zoo.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on November 16, 2012, 02:28:42 pm
The bad spelling has now become national news.  Oklahomans and pride - never the twain shall meet.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on November 16, 2012, 02:52:27 pm
Way to go Mike
(http://capitolbeatok.com/RitzeMike.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: DolfanBob on November 16, 2012, 03:15:04 pm
That's just crazy. Even Ozzy and the boy's spelled it right.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on November 16, 2012, 04:21:29 pm
Should have just posted the Oklahoma version.
(http://distilleryimage2.s3.amazonaws.com/0eeb99ca756711e181bd12313817987b_7.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Teatownclown on November 16, 2012, 05:35:32 pm
If they were going to plagiarize this they should have at least put it in hebrew. I don't think it makes any sense anyway. They may have been installed but they are not instilled. Nobody knows and nobody really cares. It's just a pawn in the culture war game.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on November 22, 2012, 10:28:54 pm
I think it is funny that we post a protestant Christian monument outside the building where the no-sharia law was signed.  Surely no way that could be interpreted as the State favoring one religion over others.

Easy argument:  other than no murder and no steeling they are all religious laws.  Every society forever has had those two laws...  so hard to argue the USA only thought of them because of the 10 Commandments.  "I am the Lord thy God" is in no way a law in thos country, and if we outlawed coveting our economy would collapse!

Lawsuit comes.  We waste a million and then pay fees to whoever challenges it. Painfully predictable.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Ed W on November 22, 2012, 10:47:55 pm
If we're going to pretend to some false equivalency, I for one demand a large stone carving of spaghetti and meatballs be installed on the capitol grounds. It would be a good idea to include this giant turtle too:

(http://media.oneidanation.net/images/FEATURE+Thanksgiving+Float+story+image.jpg)

We really should honor those native American myths just as much as we honor our own.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on November 23, 2012, 09:03:16 am
I think it is funny that we post a protestant Christian monument outside the building where the no-sharia law was signed.  Surely no way that could be interpreted as the State favoring one religion over others.

Easy argument:  other than no murder and no steeling they are all religious laws.  Every society forever has had those two laws...  so hard to argue the USA only thought of them because of the 10 Commandments.  "I am the Lord thy God" is in no way a law in thos country, and if we outlawed coveting our economy would collapse!

Lawsuit comes.  We waste a million and then pay fees to whoever challenges it. Painfully predictable.

We can then send the legal bill to Mike Ritze


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: shadows on January 15, 2013, 01:13:08 pm
If we're going to pretend to some false equivalency, I for one demand a large stone carving of spaghetti and meatballs be installed on the capitol grounds. It would be a good idea to include this giant turtle too:

(http://media.oneidanation.net/images/FEATURE+Thanksgiving+Float+story+image.jpg)

We really should honor those native American myths just as much as we honor our own.
______________________________________________________________________________________
There is a broad conflict between the Native Americans establishing the celebration ThanksGivings with the colonies who were starving, without food which some archives reported lasted 7 days.

Now it is the 10 commandment, which is a moral standard trying to embrace a slipping moral society that truly need a new set of rules.  Would it not be more appropriate to place a monument on the four corners of 61st and Peoria street, over the door of City hall and a few other chosen locations? 
 



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 15, 2013, 01:57:08 pm
______________________________________________________________________________________
There is a broad conflict between the Native Americans establishing the celebration ThanksGivings with the colonies who were starving, without food which some archives reported lasted 7 days.

Now it is the 10 commandment, which is a moral standard trying to embrace a slipping moral society that truly need a new set of rules.  Would it not be more appropriate to place a monument on the four corners of 61st and Peoria street, over the door of City hall and a few other chosen locations? 
 

What would make it appropriate in either case?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 16, 2013, 09:39:40 am
This is all natural as society changes and social cohesion breaks down, and people push for disambiguation.

What used to be the simple accepted "codes" that held communities together and founded the basis of law are deemed unnecessary, and any form of morality, civility, chivalry, or responsibility becomes inappropriate. Bad is good, and good is bad.  The simple mental practice of habituation based on experience, knowledge, and history is deemed wrong. 

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism offer wonderful collections of moral tails and reasoning designed to help men live together in peace.  Religion is successful when it provides answers and guidance outside of, and complementary to reason.  That is its purpose, whether you choose to believe in a deity or simply admire the stories and what they teach.

I know many atheists, and agnostics that still attend church and synagogue, not for the purpose of glorifying a god they do not accept, but for the meditation, peaceful assembly, community, and wisdom offered there.  Many of these folks have children, and have come to learn that simple rules like the 10 Commandments are beautiful foundations for the development of happy young people. 

Flame away, but we are not alone in history.  Temples and churches have been burned, monuments toppled, and oracles slain.  This stuff just happens from time to time.  It's a symptom, that rarely results in the enlightenment promoted by its agressors.

It will pass, but not without pain. There will always be the need for answers beyond science, and wisdom beyond self-indulgence. It is simply part of our nature.  Government should be separate from religion, however you cannot divorce religion from society.  That is the battle.
   


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: AquaMan on January 16, 2013, 09:51:36 am
And G thinks I deliver sermons?

Still some truth there.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on January 16, 2013, 10:16:56 am


I know many atheists, and agnostics that still attend church and synagogue, not for the purpose of glorifying a god they do not accept, but for the meditation, peaceful assembly, community, and wisdom offered there.  Many of these folks have children, and have come to learn that simple rules like the 10 Commandments are beautiful foundations for the development of happy young people. 

I'm not buying that.  Yes, a few atheists and agnostics will attend services for community, but even that is growing fewer and fewer as communities are growing for them.  In addition to that, there are several of the 10 commandments that they absolutely will not agree to, and just about every single one that I know (and I'm willing to bet I know a few more than you) disagree with the 10 commandments being a "beautiful foundation for the development of happy young people."  While there are some "universal" rules within that are found in just about every society out there. Erecting this on public property is unconstitutional, and nothing more than an attempt to push Christianity onto the rest of us.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: RecycleMichael on January 16, 2013, 10:37:54 am

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism offer wonderful collections of moral tails and reasoning designed to help men live together in peace.  Religion is successful when it provides answers and guidance outside of, and complementary to reason.  That is its purpose, whether you choose to believe in a deity or simply admire the stories and what they teach.

I know many atheists, and agnostics that still attend church and synagogue, not for the purpose of glorifying a god they do not accept, but for the meditation, peaceful assembly, community, and wisdom offered there.  Many of these folks have children, and have come to learn that simple rules like the 10 Commandments are beautiful foundations for the development of happy young people. 


Well said.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 16, 2013, 10:39:03 am
I'm not buying that.  Yes, a few atheists and agnostics will attend services for community, but even that is growing fewer and fewer as communities are growing for them.  In addition to that, there are several of the 10 commandments that they absolutely will not agree to, and just about every single one that I know (and I'm willing to bet I know a few more than you) disagree with the 10 commandments being a "beautiful foundation for the development of happy young people."  While there are some "universal" rules within that are found in just about every society out there. Erecting this on public property is unconstitutional, and nothing more than an attempt to push Christianity onto the rest of us.

The 10 Commandments is not Christian.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: nathanm on January 16, 2013, 10:50:21 am
The 10 Commandments is not Christian.

Tell that to my Sunday School teachers.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on January 16, 2013, 10:50:33 am
The 10 Commandments is not Christian.

It IS Judeo-Christian though.

You're parsing now..wait...what?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 16, 2013, 11:01:49 am
It IS Judeo-Christian though.

You're parsing now..wait...what?

No, it is also Islamic.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 16, 2013, 11:10:09 am
No, it is also Islamic.

Different tablets.  Those weren't broken.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on January 16, 2013, 11:16:59 am
I'm not buying that.  Yes, a few atheists and agnostics will attend services for community, but even that is growing fewer and fewer as communities are growing for them.  In addition to that, there are several of the 10 commandments that they absolutely will not agree to, and just about every single one that I know (and I'm willing to bet I know a few more than you) disagree with the 10 commandments being a "beautiful foundation for the development of happy young people."  While there are some "universal" rules within that are found in just about every society out there. Erecting this on public property is unconstitutional, and nothing more than an attempt to push Christianity onto the rest of us.

I believe the Unitarian Universalist faith is growing these days at a much faster rate than others and you will find many agnostics and atheists within those walls every Sunday.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: dioscorides on January 16, 2013, 11:48:43 am
I believe the Unitarian Universalist faith is growing these days at a much faster rate than others and you will find many agnostics and atheists within those walls every Sunday.

i am not sure if it has been pointed out on here, but tulsa has the largest single-church UU congregation in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Souls_Unitarian_Church_(Tulsa,_Oklahoma)#Largest_Unitarian_Universalist_congregation


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 16, 2013, 11:51:33 am
you will find many agnostics and atheists within those walls every Sunday.

Doing what?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: nathanm on January 16, 2013, 12:05:22 pm
Doing what?

Having a party.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 16, 2013, 01:09:18 pm
Spent several years at All Soles on Peoria.  In the youth services they would bring in ministers, rabbis, pastors, Swamis, Zen Monks, and teach all kinds of philosophy.  We would take field trips to other places of worship to learn about other beliefs. We typically got a warm welcome, except from the Baptists.  They did the same in the adult services.  Dr. Wolf would share stories from all of the popular faiths, and even some I had never heard of.

The congregation was typically very socially liberal and very libertarian politically.  That was probably the breeding ground for much of my social, philosophical, and political views.
Most of my friends from that group grew up to be very successful and productive members of society with very broad and welcoming views on all flavors of faith, and the basic human need to believe in something greater than yourself.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on January 16, 2013, 01:15:08 pm
Doing what?

You know, agnostic and atheist stuff.  We went to All Souls for a time when I was growing up and I've been in recent years as well.  I like the congregation and the services.  One of the more interesting UU congregations I've visited is the one in Eufreaka Springs, Ark.  On the Sunday we visited, the sermon was some tract on economics from the 1870's.  A little dry and bizarre if you are from another tradition, but still quite interesting.

Our lifestyle pretty much dictates "church behind bars" (long bike rides) on Sundays, so we really don't make going to a brick and mortar church a priority.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 16, 2013, 01:24:52 pm
You know, agnostic and atheist stuff.  We went to All Souls for a time when I was growing up and I've been in recent years as well.  I like the congregation and the services.  One of the more interesting UU congregations I've visited is the one in Eufreaka Springs, Ark.  On the Sunday we visited, the sermon was some tract on economics from the 1870's.  A little dry and bizarre if you are from another tradition, but still quite interesting.

Our lifestyle pretty much dictates "church behind bars" (long bike rides) on Sundays, so we really don't make going to a brick and mortar church a priority.



Nature is God's finest church.  Even whizzing by at 23mph. ;)
"Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me."


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: shadows on January 16, 2013, 04:33:33 pm
We do not have the mental capacity or the “pass word” to expand our knowledge to come to an absolute conclusion of a universe that is created in a void. We owe to the seemly super race in their conflict with the Jew as we associate trying to combine the two books of a creation into one.  The ten commandants were the 10 laws of Moses applying to the Israelites appearing in his six books.  Under the assertion in the second book it was to apply “first to the Jew and then to the Gentile”.  It is well that we are able to place monuments before buildings dedicated to our floundering societies who has the ability to create laws. Man since he was able to convey thought has sought to find his creator along with associating with fellow travelers.

Still as always there are the non-believers who would paint all walls black, and display nature as our creator, only to drag man through the mire of uncertainty of depending on blood or salt water for our existence.

They say there were no Atheist in the foxholes in Europe.  I don’t believe they could have been found among the parents in the massacres of the schools, theater and streets.   Their last resort is believing they may have a next time around.     

         


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 16, 2013, 04:36:26 pm
We do not have the mental capacity or the “pass word” to expand our knowledge to come to an absolute conclusion of a universe that is created in a void. We owe to the seemly super race in their conflict with the Jew as we associate trying to combine the two books of a creation into one.  The ten commandants were the 10 laws of Moses applying to the Israelites appearing in his six books.  Under the assertion in the second book it was to apply “first to the Jew and then to the Gentile”.  It is well that we are able to place monuments before buildings dedicated to our floundering societies who has the ability to create laws. Man since he was able to convey thought has sought to find his creator along with associating with fellow travelers.

Still as always there are the non-believers who would paint all walls black, and display nature as our creator, only to drag man through the mire of uncertainty of depending on blood or salt water for our existence.

They say there were no Atheist in the foxholes in Europe.  I don’t believe they could have been found among the parents in the massacres of the schools, theater and streets.   Their last resort is believing they may have a next time around.     
   


So, how's it going?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 16, 2013, 04:39:21 pm
We do not have the mental capacity or the “pass word” to expand our knowledge to come to an absolute conclusion of a universe that is created in a void. We owe to the seemly super race in their conflict with the Jew as we associate trying to combine the two books of a creation into one.  The ten commandants were the 10 laws of Moses applying to the Israelites appearing in his six books.  Under the assertion in the second book it was to apply “first to the Jew and then to the Gentile”.  It is well that we are able to place monuments before buildings dedicated to our floundering societies who has the ability to create laws. Man since he was able to convey thought has sought to find his creator along with associating with fellow travelers.

Still as always there are the non-believers who would paint all walls black, and display nature as our creator, only to drag man through the mire of uncertainty of depending on blood or salt water for our existence.

They say there were no Atheist in the foxholes in Europe.  I don’t believe they could have been found among the parents in the massacres of the schools, theater and streets.   Their last resort is believing they may have a next time around.     

         


. . .and with that I need a drink.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 16, 2013, 04:43:38 pm
. . .and with that I need a drink.

You know it's bad if you and I are in agreement about the crazy.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on January 16, 2013, 05:24:33 pm
No, it is also Islamic.
No, it is not Islamic.  While they have some similar passages within their scripture, and they believe in the same god, they do not have the 10 commandments.  You can try to build this strawman all you want, but it doesn't pass the mustard, and the Judeo-Christian 10 commandments being placed in public places is still endorsing that religion over others, thus making it unconstitutional. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on January 16, 2013, 05:28:57 pm
I believe the Unitarian Universalist faith is growing these days at a much faster rate than others and you will find many agnostics and atheists within those walls every Sunday.
More theist agnostic than atheist.  I would put the majority closer to a 4 - 5 on the Dawkin's scale.  Also, the news article that I'm assuming you're basing your claim on was a bad piece anyhow and really distanced the church more from the atheists that they were trying to extend an invitation to than draw them in (though it still may have brought a few). 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on January 16, 2013, 05:36:02 pm
We do not have the mental capacity or the “pass word” to expand our knowledge to come to an absolute conclusion of a universe that is created in a void. We owe to the seemly super race in their conflict with the Jew as we associate trying to combine the two books of a creation into one.  The ten commandants were the 10 laws of Moses applying to the Israelites appearing in his six books.  Under the assertion in the second book it was to apply “first to the Jew and then to the Gentile”.  It is well that we are able to place monuments before buildings dedicated to our floundering societies who has the ability to create laws. Man since he was able to convey thought has sought to find his creator along with associating with fellow travelers.

Still as always there are the non-believers who would paint all walls black, and display nature as our creator, only to drag man through the mire of uncertainty of depending on blood or salt water for our existence.

They say there were no Atheist in the foxholes in Europe.  I don’t believe they could have been found among the parents in the massacres of the schools, theater and streets.   Their last resort is believing they may have a next time around.     

         

You can argue from ignorance all you want, but it gives no more proof of your god than any other argument that exists.  And as far as the claim that there are no atheists (description, not a title, no capital needed) in foxholes (or were in Europe) is also a fallacy.  While you might have been more hard press to find one at the time who would admit it, given that they would have been ostracized over it, there are many who have come forward since, and many face death now without reverting to their indoctrination of their pasts.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on January 16, 2013, 08:23:51 pm
More theist agnostic than atheist.  I would put the majority closer to a 4 - 5 on the Dawkin's scale.  Also, the news article that I'm assuming you're basing your claim on was a bad piece anyhow and really distanced the church more from the atheists that they were trying to extend an invitation to than draw them in (though it still may have brought a few). 

I have no clue what "article" you are referring to nor what a Dawkins scale is. 

I have friends from all walks who are regular attendees and even a couple of friends who are UU ministers on the east coast.  UU is pretty cool because you can roll your own when it comes to your belief system.  Many people from the remnants of Carton Pearson's church ended up there. I also know Jews, athiests, agnostics, and yes, even Bible thumpers who have attended at one time or another. It's a comfortable place for people leery of human-influenced religious dogma.  I'm not near as enamored with the present minister as I was of John Wolfe.  He was an amazing human and teacher.

All that seems to be in common with the members is a desire to grow spiritually and be a part of a micro community. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on January 16, 2013, 11:08:06 pm
I have no clue what "article" you are referring to nor what a Dawkins scale is. 

I have friends from all walks who are regular attendees and even a couple of friends who are UU ministers on the east coast.  UU is pretty cool because you can roll your own when it comes to your belief system.  Many people from the remnants of Carton Pearson's church ended up there. I also know Jews, athiests, agnostics, and yes, even Bible thumpers who have attended at one time or another. It's a comfortable place for people leery of human-influenced religious dogma.  I'm not near as enamored with the present minister as I was of John Wolfe.  He was an amazing human and teacher.

All that seems to be in common with the members is a desire to grow spiritually and be a part of a micro community. 
I thought you might have read the recent TW article on UU that was pretty much saying it was offering atheist services.  The idea was laughable, and got many an eyeroll from the atheists in Tulsa.  The real intention of UU was to let the atheists out there know they are welcome to attend, TW just screwed the pooch on it.   The Dawkins scale is essentially the level of believe or non believe you have with 1 being absolutely know there is a god and 7 being that you absolutely know there is not a god.  Most atheists toe the line at 6 (though many will joke that they are 6.9).  Even Dawkins and Hitchens only claimed to be 6.  The so called agnostics (I have a lot of problems with using this term on it's own) generally fall in the 3-5 area. 

I understand that it is a matter of community, and there have been a large number of non-believers in the past that have continued to attend church for this fact, but the vast majority have no use for a "church" and have formed their own communities.  That's not to say that there are none going here, but that a large portion of them don't. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: RecycleMichael on January 17, 2013, 07:27:11 am
Is there an interest in attending the Unitarian Church this Sunday? 

I would commit to going to the 10am service and hanging out with TulsaNow posters...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 17, 2013, 08:49:48 am
I understand that it is a matter of community, and there have been a large number of non-believers in the past that have continued to attend church for this fact, but the vast majority have no use for a "church" and have formed their own communities.  That's not to say that there are none going here, but that a large portion of them don't. 

I think that's wonderful, because we all have need to associate with like-minded individuals. 

Where we differ is in my belief that it is actually more important to associate and interact with non-like minded individuals.  That is how we grow.  Diversity in community, faith, heritage, culture, language and lexicon are especially important for young people.  Without it you breed intolerance, bigotry, hatred and fear. 

It is not the goal of every Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu to indoctrinate you.  If you are solid and comfortable in your beliefs or lack thereof, that fear should not exist. 

We have friends in just about every religion, and I love to talk to them about their beliefs, and many of the beautiful holidays and festivals that they cherish. I have never felt discomfort or the need to admonish or ridicule.  Those are the strange products of fear.

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." Yoda Chapter 1, Verse 27




Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 17, 2013, 09:24:53 am
Is there an interest in attending the Unitarian Church this Sunday? 

I would commit to going to the 10am service and hanging out with TulsaNow posters...


Is there a "dress code"...IOW, suit?  Or are slacks and sport shirt able to fit in ok...?

Have thought about attending for a long time (which probably makes you cringe a little...) - just haven't gotten to it yet.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 17, 2013, 09:24:58 am
Is there an interest in attending the Unitarian Church this Sunday? 

I would commit to going to the 10am service and hanging out with TulsaNow posters...

Would love to do that sometime, but can't this Sunday.  3 Guys Smokin' is filming for a TV show.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: dioscorides on January 17, 2013, 09:29:09 am
Is there an interest in attending the Unitarian Church this Sunday? 

I would commit to going to the 10am service and hanging out with TulsaNow posters...

my wife and i would probably go.  we can't this sunday, though.  we are going to a little event in dc.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: RecycleMichael on January 17, 2013, 10:10:15 am
I will skip this Sunday and try for the following Sunday (January 27).

I will find out about the sermon and post details later.

Here is last week's sermon on youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT8wFooVCyvu9wCD41PQBqm6bVO3qDQM3


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 17, 2013, 10:20:38 am

It is not the goal of every Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu to indoctrinate you.  If you are solid and comfortable in your beliefs or lack thereof, that fear should not exist. 


Why would you think there is fear?

It'd be like fearing someone trying to talk you into believing in a magic elf.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on January 17, 2013, 11:14:08 am
I think that's wonderful, because we all have need to associate with like-minded individuals. 

Where we differ is in my belief that it is actually more important to associate and interact with non-like minded individuals.  That is how we grow.  Diversity in community, faith, heritage, culture, language and lexicon are especially important for young people.  Without it you breed intolerance, bigotry, hatred and fear. 

It is not the goal of every Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu to indoctrinate you.  If you are solid and comfortable in your beliefs or lack thereof, that fear should not exist. 

We have friends in just about every religion, and I love to talk to them about their beliefs, and many of the beautiful holidays and festivals that they cherish. I have never felt discomfort or the need to admonish or ridicule.  Those are the strange products of fear.

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." Yoda Chapter 1, Verse 27



My wife is baptist, I have acquaintances who are Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Wiccan, and Pagan.  I take religion classes regularly.  Often I am the one reminding others to respect the religious practices of others.  I have attended services of other religions, beyond what I was raised in, and plan on doing even more of it.  I still believe that the capitol lawn is no place for the 10 commandments.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on January 17, 2013, 11:15:42 am

It is not the goal of every Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu to indoctrinate you.  If you are solid and comfortable in your beliefs or lack thereof, that fear should not exist. 


"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." Yoda Chapter 1, Verse 27



Oh, and Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are the only religions that proselytize. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on January 17, 2013, 11:29:30 am
Oh, and Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are the only religions that proselytize. 

At least according to the Dalai Lama, Buddhists do not or should not proselytize.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 17, 2013, 12:25:56 pm
Why would you think there is fear?

It'd be like fearing someone trying to talk you into believing in a magic elf.

Ridicule and humiliation is always motivated by fear, and rarely justified. It can be the fear that someone else's views, status, or or beliefs pose a threat to you, or the fear that your own position lacks conviction.  Typically it is used as a last resort, when mounting a logical argument is no longer effective.  Ridicule is based on the idea of reducing a person's credibility based on some secondary quality, therefore portraying them as "Ridiculous".  When directed at the subject, it is a form of humiliation, and the word Humiliation is from the Latin humilis, low, lowly, from humus, ground. Literally, “reducing to dirt”. 

I do not share the beliefs of many of my friends, but I do share in the freedom and joy they derive from those beliefs. I find no motivation to reduce any of them to dirt for what they choose to believe in.

Now that I think of it, my son and daughter believe in magic elves that live on shelves just before Christmas, perhaps some day they can share that with you.  I'm glad to know you would never make fun of that.





Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 17, 2013, 12:28:02 pm
Oh, and Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are the only religions that proselytize. 

I think most religions advocate their beliefs in some manner or another.  I doubt you have much to fear from that.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 17, 2013, 12:39:41 pm
Ridicule and humiliation is always motivated by fear, and rarely justified. It can be the fear that someone else's views, status, or or beliefs pose a threat to you, or the fear that your own position lacks conviction.  Typically it is used as a last resort, when mounting a logical argument is no longer effective.  Ridicule is based on the idea of reducing a person's credibility based on some secondary quality, therefore portraying them as "Ridiculous".  When directed at the subject, it is a form of humiliation, and the word Humiliation is from the Latin humilis, low, lowly, from humus, ground. Literally, “reducing to dirt”. 

I do not share the beliefs of many of my friends, but I do share in the freedom and joy they derive from those beliefs. I find no motivation to reduce any of them to dirt for what they choose to believe in.

Now that I think of it, my son and daughter believe in magic elves that live on shelves just before Christmas, perhaps some day they can share that with you.  I'm glad to know you would never make fun of that.



If you have a fear like that, there's more than just a doubt in your philosophy.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 17, 2013, 12:40:39 pm
I think most religions advocate their beliefs in some manner or another.  I doubt you have much to fear from that.

You mention "fear" a lot.  Is that what keeps you grounded in your beliefs?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 17, 2013, 12:44:26 pm

Now that I think of it, my son and daughter believe in magic elves that live on shelves just before Christmas, perhaps some day they can share that with you.  I'm glad to know you would never make fun of that.


Those elves are used to control the children through a type of fear.  "Don't be bad, the elf is watching.  He'll tell Santa."

I guess I can see where you'd circle around to that.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: nathanm on January 17, 2013, 01:13:30 pm
It is not the goal of every Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu to indoctrinate you.  If you are solid and comfortable in your beliefs or lack thereof, that fear should not exist. 

Do you rail on about irresponsible government spending because you're scared of government or because you believe the government should spend its money responsibly? Not all of us live in fear, my friend.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 17, 2013, 02:16:30 pm
If you have a fear like that, there's more than just a doubt in your philosophy.

That was my pont. 

There is no need to ridicule another for what they choose to believe, unless you have some motivation to do so.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 17, 2013, 02:24:10 pm
Do you rail on about irresponsible government spending because you're scared of government or because you believe the government should spend its money responsibly? Not all of us live in fear, my friend.

Indeed I fear government and its growth.  We all should.
Of course there are always those who suffer from eleutherophobia and dream of government as their provider. 
I think I actually fear those people the most.


To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. . .I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. – President Thomas Jefferson

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. – George Washington

Love your country but fear its government. – N.E. folk wisdom

When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny. – Thomas Paine


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 17, 2013, 02:25:57 pm
Those elves are used to control the children through a type of fear.  "Don't be bad, the elf is watching.  He'll tell Santa."

I guess I can see where you'd circle around to that.

Will you deprive your child of the magic of childhood?

My daughter has such a friend in her class at school.  He is a very sad little boy.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 17, 2013, 02:36:39 pm
That was my pont. 

There is no need to ridicule another for what they choose to believe, unless you have some motivation to do so.

OK, great talk Russ.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 17, 2013, 02:39:26 pm
Will you deprive your child of the magic of childhood?

My daughter has such a friend in her class at school.  He is a very sad little boy.

Where do you draw the line at "magic"?



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: nathanm on January 17, 2013, 03:49:06 pm
Indeed I fear government and its growth.  We all should.

Government is nothing more than a tool, my friend. Fearing government is like fearing a screwdriver.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 17, 2013, 04:10:16 pm
Government is nothing more than a tool, my friend. Fearing government is like fearing a screwdriver.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Mass_Grave_3_at_Bergen-Belsen_concentration_camp.jpg)
There are millions of people that would argue that point if they could.   ;)

Government is force, it is not inherently benevolent, in fact history teaches us otherwise.  The more power we feed it, the less controlled it becomes.  As it expands, liberty contracts.

It took about 150 years, starting with a Bill of Rights that reserved to the states and the people all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government, to produce a Supreme Court willing to rule that growing corn to feed to your own hogs is interstate commerce and can therefore be regulated by Congress. – David Friedman

Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness. – George Washington

The more power a government has the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked, and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. – R. J. Rummel

You can't give the government the power to do good without also giving it the power to do bad – in fact, to do anything it wants. – Harry Browne

The power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest "functionaire" possesses who wields the coercive power of the state, and on whose desecration it depends whether and how I am allowed to live or to work. – Frederich von Hayek

Powerful government tends to draw into it people with bloated egos, people who think they know more than everyone else and have little hesitance in coercing their fellow man. Or as Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek said, "in government, the scum rises to the top". – Walter E. Williams


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: nathanm on January 17, 2013, 05:22:10 pm
Government is what we make of it. It is not an "other," it is in fact us. Ours is, anyway. That's the whole point of that "freedom" thing we've been trying to spread around the world. It's not freedom from government, it's freedom of government.

A picture of atrocities committed by a desperate people on the command of an unelected dictator doesn't make me fear government. It makes me fear opportunistic sociopaths who prey on the weak and use the media to froth up deep hatred toward minority groups by blaming the nation's ills on them and casting them as subhuman.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on January 17, 2013, 05:29:23 pm
Government is what we make of it. It is not an "other," it is in fact us. Ours is, anyway. That's the whole point of that "freedom" thing we've been trying to spread around the world. It's not freedom from government, it's freedom of government.

A picture of atrocities committed by a desperate people on the command of an unelected dictator doesn't make me fear government. It makes me fear opportunistic sociopaths who prey on the weak and use the media to froth up deep hatred toward minority groups by blaming the nation's ills on them and casting them as subhuman.

Wait, didn't you just describe quite a bit of the Republican Party?  That part known as the Tea Party?

 :o


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on January 17, 2013, 07:47:22 pm
Government is what we make of it. It is not an "other," it is in fact us. Ours is, anyway. That's the whole point of that "freedom" thing we've been trying to spread around the world. It's not freedom from government, it's freedom of government.

A picture of atrocities committed by a desperate people on the command of an unelected dictator doesn't make me fear government. It makes me fear opportunistic sociopaths who prey on the weak and use the media to froth up deep hatred toward minority groups by blaming the nation's ills on them and casting them as subhuman.

Ginning up racial discord amongst minorities toward the white and wealthy is just as dangerous.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on January 17, 2013, 07:53:11 pm
Wait, didn't you just describe quite a bit of the Republican Party?  That part known as the Tea Party?

 :o

Most likely OWS. Those damned 1%ers cheated, lied, stole blah blah blah. We gotta make em pay.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on January 17, 2013, 07:59:03 pm
Ginning up racial discord amongst minorities toward the white and wealthy is just as dangerous.

Wait, didn't you just describe quite a bit of the democrat party?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on January 17, 2013, 10:21:00 pm
Wait, didn't you just describe quite a bit of the democrat party?

Why yes, yes I did!


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: shadows on January 18, 2013, 03:32:00 pm


Seems among us the soap boxes have been revived as again we have created government as a superficial person who prey on the common citizen.  The words “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union………………….”and old Ben is to have said “I smell a rat and went home.”  There was no intent to use the convention to establish a dictatorship but only to form a state’s leadership council,  As by the nature of the species and their arrogance before ink had dried, held in executive session behind guarded doors, acting as a new council of states, establish a dictatorship.  The state representatives, it seems not wanting to take the document back to the state houses, left it in the building until some time later before submitting it.

Oklahoma, after trading it to the Native Americans, then taking it back, giving it to them twice more and taking it back; applied to join the State’s leadership council at the beginning of the 1900’s

Now the 10 commandments of the laws of Moses seems to be driving posters to drink while the Native Americans are collecting from Okie’s restitution for their promised lands.         




Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 18, 2013, 03:39:21 pm

Seems among us the soap boxes have been revived as again we have created government as a superficial person who prey on the common citizen.  The words “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union………………….”and old Ben is to have said “I smell a rat and went home.”  There was no intent to use the convention to establish a dictatorship but only to form a state’s leadership council,  As by the nature of the species and their arrogance before ink had dried, held in executive session behind guarded doors, acting as a new council of states, establish a dictatorship.  The state representatives, it seems not wanting to take the document back to the state houses, left it in the building until some time later before submitting it.

Oklahoma, after trading it to the Native Americans, then taking it back, giving it to them twice more and taking it back; applied to join the State’s leadership council at the beginning of the 1900’s

Now the 10 commandments of the laws of Moses seems to be driving posters to drink while the Native Americans are collecting from Okie’s restitution for their promised lands.         


Aren't you supposed to be saying this in a quatrain?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 18, 2013, 03:46:56 pm
Aren't you supposed to be saying this in a quatrain?

In the year 3072, the writings of Shadows will have their own Discovery Channel special.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 19, 2013, 08:29:05 am
Aren't you supposed to be saying this in a quatrain?


That post actually has a thread of a thought throughout...it's just difficult to pull it out, so I guess it is a sort of a quatrain.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 20, 2013, 08:58:40 pm
To snipe a random point: 

Fear is the driving force in Abrahamic religions.  If you don't do what you are told you will pay.  If you do what you are told you may still have a crappy life but once it can no longer be verified (death) it will be better. 

The "big three" are among very few religions that instill the notion that they are THE right religion and the fear that if you don't believe that you will be punished.  A great case can be made that some modern Christian tenants tried to change that - but rarely do Christians frame beliefs as making Jesus happy or gaining rewards.  Generally the real fear is being viewed by others as outside the heard in some way.

Which is why we need so badly to show everyone how Christian we are but placing Idols on the capital grounds.  Look!  We love Jesus more than you! We have a monument.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: shadows on January 27, 2013, 06:18:11 pm
In view of the nations gathering as sheaves of the harvest that burn, there are presently available the final button that will consume this planet.  So there is available the igniter to reduce all to a dark place in space.

Whether this man called Jesus was as he claimed or a fugitive from an insane asylum he has promoted many religions and changed much of outlook of the races as well as the face of the earth.  His failure was being unable to convince the living to live in peace.

The number of people that witnessed the many marvels gives strong credence to the performances.  Still among us there will always be the Thomas’s.

The constitution was signed paying reverence to a creator, still we cry “take it away” from the promised lands when we make a tablet showing morality.     

Next we will have to deal with the home keeper by nature as we open up the war combat zones to them. (I though they were doing quite well domestically)

Mother, mother can you say

Has not your task been done?

Beside the gun his mother lay

Being unconscious of her son.


         


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on January 27, 2013, 06:54:18 pm


The constitution was signed paying reverence to a creator, still we cry “take it away” from the promised lands when we make a tablet showing morality.     


         


No, it wasn't. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: shadows on January 27, 2013, 07:55:41 pm
No, it wasn't. 

Which is wrong.

“….in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred….”

“…. honor thy father and mother.…”



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: custosnox on January 27, 2013, 09:22:48 pm
Which is wrong.

“….in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred….”

“…. honor thy father and mother.…”


Year of our lord was in reference to the commonly used Gregorian calender, not paying reverence to a creator.  But please, don't let facts invade your delusions.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Red Arrow on January 27, 2013, 09:51:13 pm
Year of our lord was in reference to the commonly used Gregorian calender, not paying reverence to a creator.  But please, don't let facts invade your delusions.

I have a couple of rare coins dated 12 BC if anyone is interested.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: BKDotCom on January 27, 2013, 10:55:17 pm
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz3EEqtcJME[/youtube]


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Gaspar on January 28, 2013, 03:59:45 pm
____________________________

Assuming you are referring to the calendar Pope Gregory Xlll of the church of Rome designed and the use of  “Lord” does not refer to the creator but some alien.

I have some $50 dollar coins printed by the off shore islands that they say have a value $4,1625.00, in the bank deposit box.   


I stay away from off shore islands.  They are not my favorite variety of island.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: shadows on January 28, 2013, 04:07:09 pm
Year of our lord was in reference to the commonly used Gregorian calender, not paying reverence to a creator.  But please, don't let facts invade your delusions.

___Assuming you are referring to the calendar Pope Gregory Xlll of the church of Rome designed and the use of  “Lord” does not refer to the creator but some alien.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 28, 2013, 05:35:17 pm
I have a couple of rare coins dated 12 BC if anyone is interested.


Those will be collector's items someday!!



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on October 24, 2014, 09:19:33 am
I hate reviving such an old topic, but it fits here...

Looks like someone didn't take too kindly to The Word being on the State Capitol grounds.  Or maybe it was just an accident.

http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-city-ten-commandments-monument-crumbles-when-vehicle-plows-into-statue


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on October 24, 2014, 09:23:26 am
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/8/29/15/anigif_enhanced-buzz-30851-1377804702-9.gif)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on October 24, 2014, 09:27:19 am
I hate reviving such an old topic, but it fits here...

Looks like someone didn't take too kindly to The Word being on the State Capitol grounds.  Or maybe it was just an accident.

http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-city-ten-commandments-monument-crumbles-when-vehicle-plows-into-statue

Wonder if they found a brick taped to the gas pedal...

Now, if it was privately funded, is it really state property?

Quote
An investigation is underway by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol into the "malicious destruction of state property," according to OHP spokesman Capt. George Brown.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: DolfanBob on October 24, 2014, 09:45:23 am
It could have been avoided if the Satanic statue had been there to block for it.  ;D


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on October 24, 2014, 09:59:51 am
It could have been avoided if the Satanic statue had been there to block for it.  ;D

Probably wont happen now.  Think of the tourism that would have drawn!   ;D


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on October 24, 2014, 11:10:27 am
This AND Honey Boo Boo?

Hell in a hand basket...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on October 24, 2014, 11:12:39 am
This AND Honey Boo Boo?

Hell in a hand basket...

The Black Mass did it.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on October 24, 2014, 03:26:23 pm
The Black Mass did it.

It was an actual Satanist.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/disputed-oklahoma-ten-commandments-statue-smashed-26427963

Unbelievable. When this dumb state couldn't get any stranger, it suddenly does. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 24, 2014, 03:51:13 pm
It was an actual Satanist.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/disputed-oklahoma-ten-commandments-statue-smashed-26427963

Unbelievable. When this dumb state couldn't get any stranger, it suddenly does. 

I just, ah, just ah, I got nothin.........


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on October 24, 2014, 03:55:12 pm
I just, ah, just ah, I got nothin.........

Oklahoma leads in mental illness so that's somethin...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Red Arrow on October 24, 2014, 04:25:28 pm
Oklahoma leads in mental illness so that's somethin...

Maybe we can finally be 1st in something instead of 2nd or 3rd.
 
 ;D



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on October 24, 2014, 07:13:10 pm
Don't like something, just destroy it. It's freakin hilarious.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on October 24, 2014, 08:31:02 pm
I like all the people really mad that a religious symbol was vandalized, when they JUST had the 10 Commandments declared a secural monument.  Its almost like they just made crap up to insert their religious views over others.  It is the most intellectually dishonest display I've seen in a long time.

How will Oklahoman's now remember not to covet thy neighbor's manservant?

Too had we have a moratorium on monuments...  No way they allow a single monument, deny other religious monuments, and them create an exemption to the moratorium to install a new monument representing the state religion of Oklahoma.  Nope.  I simply can't imagine such a thing happening as it would CLEARLY show that the moratorium is a ploy to repress other religions.

The one thing that pisses me off more than anything is a good ole fashioned liar.

Also worth noting that the man was told to destroy the monument by Satan.  While I don't believe in mystical bad men... The people who put up the monument do.  So isn't his explanation plausible?  God wanted a monument, Satan didn't.  Logic!


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on October 24, 2014, 08:44:53 pm
https://www.ok.gov/dcs/searchdocs/app/manage_documents.php?id=1015

That is the link to the 12/19/2013 meeting in question that placed the moratorium in place.  Officially, there is a "Moratorium on Consideration of All Monument Requests."

Bets that this is reinterpreted to be moratorium on consideration of all monuments requests that aren't the ten commandments?  Remember, the justification was that because of the lawsuit the proper course of action is no action.  POOF!  That justification has already been laughed at by Fallin...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on October 24, 2014, 08:45:29 pm
I like all the people really mad that a religious symbol was vandalized, when they JUST had the 10 Commandments declared a secural monument.  Its almost like they just made crap up to insert their religious views over others.  It is the most intellectually dishonest display I've seen in a long time.

How will Oklahoman's now remember not to covet thy neighbor's manservant?

Too had we have a moratorium on monuments...  No way they allow a single monument, deny other religious monuments, and them create an exemption to the moratorium to install a new monument representing the state religion of Oklahoma.  Nope.  I simply can't imagine such a thing happening as it would CLEARLY show that the moratorium is a ploy to repress other religions.

The one thing that pisses me off more than anything is a good ole fashioned liar.

Also worth noting that the man was told to destroy the monument by Satan.  While I don't believe in mystical bad men... The people who put up the monument do.  So isn't his explanation plausible?  God wanted a monument, Satan didn't.  Logic!

But you have a very covetable manservant!


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Ed W on October 24, 2014, 09:31:55 pm
I'm wondering if copious amounts of alcohol make one better able to hear Satan. But on the other hand, I'm disappointed that it wasn't a drunk Owasso cheerleader this time. We're slipping out here in the suburbs.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Red Arrow on October 24, 2014, 11:09:23 pm
But on the other hand, I'm disappointed that it wasn't a drunk Owasso cheerleader this time. We're slipping out here in the suburbs.

It's tough to stay #1.  The cities try harder.

  ;D



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Red Arrow on October 24, 2014, 11:14:29 pm
I like all the people really mad that a religious symbol was vandalized, when they JUST had the 10 Commandments declared a secural monument.

Minor details.
 
 ;D


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on October 24, 2014, 11:31:53 pm
I'm wondering if copious amounts of alcohol make one better able to hear Satan. But on the other hand, I'm disappointed that it wasn't a drunk Owasso cheerleader this time. We're slipping out here in the suburbs.

I smoked enough dope one time about 30 years ago, I swore Satan was talking to me. I reminded a friend of mine at my HS reunion a few weeks back. He said: "Hey we proved to ourselves you couldn't OD on pot that night,". I think it took a few days to get my voice back after that stunt.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 25, 2014, 02:56:37 am
Oklahoma leads in mental illness so that's somethin...

I thought Oklahoma lead in this......

(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs18/f/2007/171/b/f/Creationist_Bible_Thumper_by_BlackRaptor.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 25, 2014, 02:59:12 am
I'm wondering if copious amounts of alcohol make one better able to hear Satan. But on the other hand, I'm disappointed that it wasn't a drunk Owasso cheerleader this time. We're slipping out here in the suburbs.

I will say this, that in my younger years after consuming a large amount of Jack Daniel's, instead of an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other, I swear they were both devils.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: BKDotCom on October 25, 2014, 07:35:22 am
Also worth noting that the man was told to destroy the monument by Satan.  While I don't believe in mystical bad men... The people who put up the monument do.  So isn't his explanation plausible?  God wanted a monument, Satan didn't.  Logic!

Jesus and God talk to people.   The thought of Satan talking to people is just crazy talk.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on October 25, 2014, 10:04:52 am
It was an actual Satanist.

Somehow I suspect that if they had asked him if he were Al Qaeda or the Queen of England he would have said yes to those, too.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: sauerkraut on October 25, 2014, 01:25:44 pm
They can put the 10 commandments back and make it stronger and better, use a heavy cement foundation footing  built  5 feet or so above the ground and put the commandments on top of that or just craved into the heavy cement- they will last forever then.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on October 25, 2014, 01:34:00 pm
They can put the 10 commandments back and make it stronger and better, use a heavy cement foundation footing  built  5 feet or so above the ground and put the commandments on top of that or just craved into the heavy cement- they will last forever then.

How about instead of the big Indian we get a 21 story Charlton Heston as Moses holding the tablets. Light it up with neon. Make it real nice.

(http://1ywpi925eu8i25ne6noy0131.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/charlton-heston-10-Commandments-Moses-Horns.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 25, 2014, 02:12:31 pm
How about instead of the big Indian we get a 21 story Charlton Heston as Moses holding the tablets. Light it up with neon. Make it real nice.

(http://1ywpi925eu8i25ne6noy0131.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/charlton-heston-10-Commandments-Moses-Horns.jpg)

Build it on the highest point and have it face west towards the giant cross in Groom TX.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: guido911 on October 25, 2014, 03:15:42 pm
Jesus and God talk to people.   The thought of Satan talking to people is just crazy talk.

Who knew satanists had such a supportive following in Tulsa.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on October 25, 2014, 04:34:42 pm
How about instead of the big Indian we get a 21 story Charlton Heston as Moses holding the tablets. Light it up with neon. Make it real nice.



Lasers,
with sharks...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on October 26, 2014, 11:28:17 pm
They can put the 10 commandments back and make it stronger and better, use a heavy cement foundation footing  built  5 feet or so above the ground and put the commandments on top of that or just craved into the heavy cement- they will last forever then.


Except that would be illegal.... 

Oh, that's right....


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on October 27, 2014, 09:20:33 am
Coming Friday, to a neighborhood near you....!!


https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1545238462283697&fref=nf


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: DolfanBob on October 28, 2014, 07:24:05 am
Local boy goes nuts. He was first reported from Roland. It's since been updated that he is from right here in Bixby. Urinating, fighting, spitting, destroying. He is quite the fine example of Green Country madness. Spark on Spartan!

http://www.tulsaworld.com/staff/bixby-man-accused-of-destroying-ten-commandments-monument-also-jailed/article_5cdbabbb-623f-5023-a6ad-cf6e4c02053e.html


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on October 28, 2014, 10:09:51 am
Local boy goes nuts. He was first reported from Roland. It's since been updated that he is from right here in Bixby. Urinating, fighting, spitting, destroying. He is quite the fine example of Green Country madness. Spark on Spartan!

http://www.tulsaworld.com/staff/bixby-man-accused-of-destroying-ten-commandments-monument-also-jailed/article_5cdbabbb-623f-5023-a6ad-cf6e4c02053e.html

So how did he drive his car up some stairs and across the lawn, stop at the monument, get out and pee on it, get back in and drive over it, in front of at least one video camera, and no one notice?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on October 28, 2014, 11:43:09 am
So how did he drive his car up some stairs and across the lawn, stop at the monument, get out and pee on it, get back in and drive over it, in front of at least one video camera, and no one notice?

Everyone's used to Sally Kern doing the same thing.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on October 28, 2014, 01:23:48 pm
Everyone's used to Sally Kern doing the same thing.


I haven't seen a picture of Sally for a while....do you mean she now looks like this guy, since no one could tell the difference on the security video?   Wouldn't surprise me....



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 08, 2015, 12:39:41 pm
and it's fixed

(https://blu172.mail.live.com/Handlers/ImageProxy.mvc?bicild=&canary=Zn8z0J%2bF57DEH4eIT%2fbKRj5k5LCLq0dK%2fzMs2JLqbT0%3d0&url=http%3a%2f%2fbloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com%2ftulsaworld.com%2fcontent%2ftncms%2fassets%2fv3%2feditorial%2f4%2f11%2f411ee936-7058-5a45-9b34-0c6e16e6ebd3%2f54aeb08e3e870.image.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 08, 2015, 01:05:31 pm
SB14, introduced on Monday, is The  Bill of Rights Monument Placement Act. 

But we have a moratorium on new monuments.  Other than a new Ten Commandments Monument. And the Bill of Rights Monument.

What's that Hindus?  No, no.  We still have a moratorium on on your ridiculous little thing.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on January 09, 2015, 05:32:33 pm
SB14, introduced on Monday, is The  Bill of Rights Monument Placement Act. 

But we have a moratorium on new monuments.  Other than a new Ten Commandments Monument. And the Bill of Rights Monument.

What's that Hindus?  No, no.  We still have a moratorium on on your ridiculous little thing.


Workers began installing the new monument at Capitol on Thursday morning.
“No state workers are involved,” said John Estus, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Enterprise Services. “We were informed they would install it today.”

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/ten-commandments-monument-reinstalled-on-capitol-grounds/article_ba8aff63-af86-55ce-bb28-7c3c049669a3.html

Oh, that's the catch?   
That should simplify matters for all the other religions seeking equal representation... just hire somebody off of Craigslist and go do it. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 09, 2015, 06:06:42 pm
Done!  I will work to pay for the installation of the Pastafarian monument. Couldn't be more than a a few hundred bucks to have it installed and there is space immediately flanking the (protestant) 10 Commandments.

Hell, someone should go rogue and install it "voluntarily" on the capital grounds. No damage to anything else of course, doing so would offend His bending nature, just voluntarily place it somewhere tasteful over night.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2380191103_f5e504cacc.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on January 09, 2015, 06:47:01 pm
Done!  I will work to pay for the installation of the Pastafarian monument. Couldn't be more than a a few hundred bucks to have it installed and there is space immediately flanking the (protestant) 10 Commandments.

Hell, someone should go rogue and install it "voluntarily" on the capital grounds. No damage to anything else of course, doing so would offend His bending nature, just voluntarily place it somewhere tasteful over night.

I guess once you "inform" the Office of Management and Enterprise Services your crew is on their way, it's as right as rain.   ;D


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 11, 2015, 10:23:06 pm
Done!  I will work to pay for the installation of the Pastafarian monument. Couldn't be more than a a few hundred bucks to have it installed and there is space immediately flanking the (protestant) 10 Commandments.

Hell, someone should go rogue and install it "voluntarily" on the capital grounds. No damage to anything else of course, doing so would offend His bending nature, just voluntarily place it somewhere tasteful over night.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2380191103_f5e504cacc.jpg)


I would contribute to that.  Just to maintain the 'contrary'....


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Ibanez on January 12, 2015, 04:11:47 pm
A guy I work with is talking about doing a Kickstarter to fund a Jedi monument. Seems just as valid as the others so why not??


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on January 13, 2015, 12:19:35 pm
A guy I work with is talking about doing a Kickstarter to fund a Jedi monument. Seems just as valid as the others so why not??

This might fly

(http://www.loripalminteri.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/jesus_jedi_by_dart19-d3b90tb.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 13, 2015, 01:11:30 pm
According to the New Zealand census, there are more members of the Jedi Church than Assembly of God or Jehovah's Witnesses. In the UK they report 2% Church of the Jedi.

http://www.jedichurch.org/




Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on January 13, 2015, 02:26:15 pm
This might fly

(http://www.loripalminteri.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/jesus_jedi_by_dart19-d3b90tb.jpg)

Jesus was a Jedi, it all makes sense now.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on January 13, 2015, 03:05:14 pm
This might fly

(http://www.loripalminteri.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/jesus_jedi_by_dart19-d3b90tb.jpg)

He looks quite regal with a light sabre.  Perhaps history would have been re-written if he’d possessed such a thing when the Roman Guard came for him.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 13, 2015, 03:38:59 pm
(http://0.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/73/75/f03eafe421fe9a042f6e816e40863f19.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on April 06, 2015, 01:50:27 pm
Hell, someone should go rogue and install it "voluntarily" on the capital grounds. No damage to anything else of course, doing so would offend His bending nature, just voluntarily place it somewhere tasteful over night.

Damn, and we cant even manage just one monument.


Snowden cover-up: Unauthorized bust in Brooklyn becomes martyr to cause
http://rt.com/usa/247213-brooklyn-snowden-statue-installed-covered/




Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on June 30, 2015, 11:15:59 am
Oklahoma's 10 Commandments Must Come Down

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahomas-10-commandments-must-come-down (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahomas-10-commandments-must-come-down)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/large/public/201410/10_commandments_broken.png)

Quote
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled the 10-Commandments monument must be taken down from the Oklahoma State Capitol grounds. 

The vote was 7-2.

The monument was paid for by Broken Arrow State Representative  Mike Ritze and his family. The five page ruling says monument is religious in nature and therefore violates the Oklahoma Constitution.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on June 30, 2015, 11:42:17 am
Oklahoma's 10 Commandments Must Come Down

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahomas-10-commandments-must-come-down (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahomas-10-commandments-must-come-down)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/large/public/201410/10_commandments_broken.png)


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXeTsWGPT0w[/youtube]


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on June 30, 2015, 11:45:14 am

You think there will be calls by OK legislators to have the OK Supreme Court removed?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on June 30, 2015, 11:45:56 am
You think there will be calls by OK legislators to have the OK Supreme Court removed?

You never know.  I don't think we've heard from Sally Kern in a while.  Maybe she's due?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: TheArtist on July 01, 2015, 07:31:46 am
IMPEACH EM!  And neuter that pesky bar association while yer at it.


http://www.newson6.com/story/29450348/lawmakers-call-for-impeachment-after-ok-supreme-court-ruling-on-monument


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on July 01, 2015, 08:28:21 am
Reading the decision and the part of the Oklahoma Constitution they cited, I fail to see how this was “judicial activism”.  Couching this as an "historic document” and ignoring it is the foundation of Judeo-Christian beliefs was more likely legislative activism.

The current state of the Oklahoma GOP trying to create a theocracy is just plain embarrassing.


Title: Re:
Post by: Ed W on July 01, 2015, 10:40:57 am
The monument served an important purpose. It allowed our legislators to point out their Christian values (and raise campaign funds) while railing against secular humanists, atheists, Muslims, and what-have-you, even though they knew it would eventually have to be removed. Now they get to gnash their teeth and rail again about all of the above (and raise campaign funds from it) in an exercise that is as predictable as it is cynical.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on July 01, 2015, 12:08:59 pm
IMPEACH EM!  And neuter that pesky bar association while yer at it.


http://www.newson6.com/story/29450348/lawmakers-call-for-impeachment-after-ok-supreme-court-ruling-on-monument

And boom...stupid dumbasses


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 02, 2015, 06:29:38 am
OK Constitution: you can't use State property to directly or indirectly benefit or promote a religion.

Lawmakers: lets use State property to promote our religion. How about a 8' tall monument to our God's greatest commands to his chosen people! Then lets laugh at every other religion that wants a monument.

Court: The Constitution says that you can't do that.

Legislaturs, governor, and attorney general:
Warbiegarble! Dictator! Unlawful activist hacks! How DARE you donykur sworn duty and follow the Constitution.

Let's impeach the justices for refusing to play politics. Then lets unfund the courts, the bar, and anyone else who understands legal principles. Then lets take separation of church and state out of the Constitution and pretend Article 1 of the OK Const. doesn't bootstrap the US Constitution.

Only then can we show the Lord Jesus Christ how much we love him such that hebwont toss us into a first pitnof hell forever.

Amen.

I mean, totally secular historical reference.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on July 02, 2015, 08:35:02 am
I miss the Colbert Report

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/zk7gig/better-know-a-district---georgia-s-8th---lynn-westmoreland-update



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on July 06, 2015, 10:01:27 pm
Now state GOP lawmakers are threatening to retaliate by removing American Indian artwork in the Capitol and State Supreme Court buildings because they are "religious in nature".



Republican State Rep. John Paul Jordan also told Huffington Post the court decision might be applied to people who have purchased health insurance under "Obamacare" who receive health care at religious hospitals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/07/oklahoma-ten-commandments_n_7747278.html





Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 07, 2015, 06:05:21 am
(http://www.arts.ok.gov/p/capitol_collection/artwork/7.jpg)

Is this the "offender?"
http://www.arts.ok.gov/Art_at_the_Capitol/Capitol_Collection.php?c=cac&awid=7

I refuse to believe our legislature is that stupid.

The alternative is that our legislature is the same as an obnoxious child throwing a fit in Walmart.

Not sure which is better.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on July 07, 2015, 06:35:29 am
(http://www.arts.ok.gov/p/capitol_collection/artwork/7.jpg)

Is this the "offender?"
http://www.arts.ok.gov/Art_at_the_Capitol/Capitol_Collection.php?c=cac&awid=7

I refuse to believe our legislature is that stupid.

The alternative is that our legislature is the same as an obnoxious child throwing a fit in Walmart.

Not sure which is better.

Our legislature has been *that* stupid for a while now...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: carltonplace on July 07, 2015, 08:56:06 am
Oklahoma's 10 Commandments Must Come Down

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahomas-10-commandments-must-come-down (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahomas-10-commandments-must-come-down)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/large/public/201410/10_commandments_broken.png)


(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f9Lm32GVB8Y/UyRRwVDtM9I/AAAAAAAB01o/VSbm8cmjFg4/s1600/funny-moses-ten-commandments.gif)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on July 07, 2015, 12:32:15 pm
Governor said she "tain't movin' these 'mandments."


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on July 07, 2015, 10:04:37 pm
Governor said she "tain't movin' these 'mandments."


“Oklahoma is state where we respect the rule of law, and we will not ignore the state courts or their decisions,” Fallin said. “However, we are also a state with three co-equal branches of government.”
...of which she is one of those branches.  I wonder what she will decide?

Failin wont move the monument because she believes the court will change its mind in the future, so as the ACLU pointed out, can we just go a head and open marijuana dispensaries now since we know they will be legal in the future?

Her contempt seems an impeachable offense.  I wonder if Jari Askins is still interested in the job.









Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 08, 2015, 03:18:30 pm
Well, if people are going to discuss the propriety of impeachment (which will not happen. Impeachable offenses do not get you impeached. UNPOPULAR impeachable offenses get you impeached), we need to educate ourselves on what is an impeachable offense. Otherwise, we'd just be making up stuff and pretending we understand the legal process. And who would do such a thing? (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Oklahoma_State_Capitol.jpg)

Impeachment:
51 Okla. stat. § 51: (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=80347)

Quote from: 51 OS 51
The Governor and other elective state officers, including the Justices of the Supreme Court, shall be liable and subject to impeachment for willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, habitual drunkenness, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude committed while in office.

The Oath of Office (https://www.sos.ok.gov/forms/gov/OathOfOffice.pdf):

Quote from: Oath of Office
I, Mary Fallin, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and that I will not, knowingly, receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other valuable thing, for the performance or nonperformance of any act or duty pertaining to my office, other than the compensation allowed by law; I further swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my duties as Governor to the best of my ability.

/s/ Mary Fallin

The Loyalty Oath: (https://www.sos.ok.gov/forms/gov/LoyaltyOath.pdf)

Quote from: Loyalty Oath
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Oklahoma, and that I will faithfully discharge, according to the best of my ability, the duties of my office or employment during such time as I am Governor.

/s/ Mary Fallin

Here is a photo of Governor Fallin signing the oaths in front of the Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court:

(http://www.ok.gov/governor/images/Oath%20of%20Office%20Signing.jpg)

She has sworn, in front of the Chief Justice, to support the Constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma. You know, the Constitution of Oklahoma (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/index.asp?ftdb=STOKCN&level=1)... the second highest law in the land (after the US Constitution pursuant to Article 1 Section 1 of all post reconstruction states).



Quote from: OK Constitution
Oklahoma Constitution, Article 4, § 1. Departments of government - Separation and distinction.

The powers of the government of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three separate departments: The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; and except as provided in this Constitution, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments of government shall be separate and distinct, and neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others.

The legislature makes the law.
The executive enforces the law.
The judiciary interprets the law (which includes the constitution). (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137)

So the legislature has drafted and ratified a constitution (the law). The judiciary has interpreted the constitution (the law). And the executive has simply refused to do their part.

Quote from: OK Constitution
Oklahoma Constitution, Article 6, § 8. Execution of laws - Intercourse with other states and United States - Conservator of peace.

The Governor shall cause the laws of the State to be faithfully executed, and shall conduct in person or in such manner as may be prescribed by law, all intercourse and business of the State with other states and with the United States, and he shall be a conservator of the peace throughout the State.

The law of the state is very clear. Even without the Supreme Court ruling the law was very clear. It was ignored under a pretext ("I am the Lord thy God, though shalt have no Gods before me!" is not a secular statement of law or a monument to historical events...), great political pandering. But it has now been ORDERED removed in an unambiguous manner (the entire opinion is very brief and simple (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=476438)). Her job is to conduct herself in such manner as may be prescribed by law.

I have not found any authority that says the governor is to execute the laws of the State or abide by the Constitution unless she doesn't like it. I haven't seen anything that says she doesn't have to abide by the Constitution if she is working on having it changed. I have read the entire Oklahoma Constitution, that isn't in there. She may seek a stay pending appeal (or rehearing), but I have found no authority, and been presented with none, stating that she may simply ignore her duty.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on July 08, 2015, 09:42:06 pm
I have not found any authority that says the governor is to execute the laws of the State or abide by the Constitution unless she doesn't like it. I haven't seen anything that says she doesn't have to abide by the Constitution if she is working on having it changed. I have read the entire Oklahoma Constitution, that isn't in there. She may seek a stay pending appeal (or rehearing), but I have found no authority, and been presented with none, stating that she may simply ignore her duty.

Well done.

“Frankly, I would be astonished if we get to a point where the governor outright defies an order of our state’s highest court,” Kiesel said. “That said, if she does, there is a word for it. It is called contempt.”
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/gov-mary-fallin-monument-unmoved-by-supreme-court-s-ten/article_b6a922ce-2d5e-5675-9929-5f18658ee5b9.html


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 09, 2015, 09:58:45 am
(http://www.arts.ok.gov/p/capitol_collection/artwork/7.jpg)

Is this the "offender?"

I refuse to believe our legislature is that stupid.

The alternative is that our legislature is the same as an obnoxious child throwing a fit in Walmart.

Not sure which is better.


How long have you lived in this state??

Oklahoma legislature has always been that stupid.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: sauerkraut on July 09, 2015, 11:45:59 am
Thank you Mary Fallin for standing up with the people of Oklahoma and not the  judges who write law instead of doing their job. The 10 comandments stay! :)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: sauerkraut on July 09, 2015, 11:50:28 am

“Oklahoma is state where we respect the rule of law, and we will not ignore the state courts or their decisions,” Fallin said. “However, we are also a state with three co-equal branches of government.”
...of which she is one of those branches.  I wonder what she will decide?

Failin wont move the monument because she believes the court will change its mind in the future, so as the ACLU pointed out, can we just go a head and open marijuana dispensaries now since we know they will be legal in the future?

Her contempt seems an impeachable offense.  I wonder if Jari Askins is still interested in the job.








The court is not doing it's job, they are writing laws instead of interpreting them. The monument was also paid for with private funds so the court had no business in the case anyhow, the governor is doing good by not following an illegal ruling. The court was following an political agenda not doing it's legal job-  A idea I heard was to let the people of Oklahoma vote on the issue- what could be more fair than that?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on July 09, 2015, 11:55:26 am
The court is not doing it's job, they are writing laws instead of interpreting them. The monument was also paid for with private funds so the court had no business in the case anyhow, the governor is doing good by not following an illegal ruling. The court was following an political agenda not doing it's legal job-  A idea I heard was to let the people of Oklahoma vote on the issue- what could be more fair than that?

So you'll be okay with a privately funded monument to the history of Satan?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on July 09, 2015, 12:25:40 pm
The court is not doing it's job, they are writing laws instead of interpreting them. The monument was also paid for with private funds so the court had no business in the case anyhow, the governor is doing good by not following an illegal ruling. The court was following an political agenda not doing it's legal job-  A idea I heard was to let the people of Oklahoma vote on the issue- what could be more fair than that?

How are they NOT interpreting that section of the State Constitution which plainly states why the monument cannot stay?

You sir, are a blathering IDIOT.  You cannot pick and choose what laws to follow just because you don't like them.  She (and AG Pruitt) are acting like spoiled children.



Title: Re:
Post by: Ed W on July 09, 2015, 03:03:13 pm
Oh, I  think I'm beginning to understand. Here on Bizarro World,  "illegal" has a completely different meaning than it does in the real world. Judges state quite plainly that something contravenes the state constitution, therefore their ruling is illegal.

Let's legalize illegal drugs in order to make more people more normal through more science. It's the moral thing to do.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 09, 2015, 03:35:37 pm
The court is not doing it's job, they are writing laws instead of interpreting them. The monument was also paid for with private funds so the court had no business in the case anyhow, the governor is doing good by not following an illegal ruling. The court was following an political agenda not doing it's legal job-  A idea I heard was to let the people of Oklahoma vote on the issue- what could be more fair than that?

I understand that my detailed analysis with laws, constitutional quotes, and links to underlying documents is too complicated for some people (you) to understand. I try to make simple for you.

1) OK Constitution says can't put religious stuff on state property.
2) Government put religious stuff on state property.
3) Court read constitution, told government can't put religious stuff on state property.


That is it. Really truly, it is that simple. No interpretation or tortured legal reasoning needed. Just read one sentence of the Oklahoma Constitution and the case is done.

I have three questions and a statement:

1) Have you read the decision?   - I know the answer is no. So scroll up, click the link, and read the entire 1 page. Or admit your an idiot who talks about things they don't understand.
2) Explain how it is "illegal" utilizing the 200 year old doctrine outlined in Marbury v. Madison as it applies to plan reading of the Oklahoma Constitution.
3) Explain how interpreting plain language is political and, if concluding it is, explain how any decision of any court could then avoid being "political."

You exemplify everything wrong with America. It isn't disagreement I have a problem with, its ignorance. You have no clue what you're talking about and have no desire to improve that situation, yet we allow you to vote. This "universal suffrage" thing may need to be reconsidered.


Title: Re:
Post by: Red Arrow on July 09, 2015, 04:32:07 pm
Oh, I  think I'm beginning to understand. Here on Bizarro World,  "illegal" has a completely different meaning than it does in the real world.

Illegal is a sick bird.   ;D



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on July 09, 2015, 04:34:12 pm
I understand that my detailed analysis with laws, constitutional quotes, and links to underlying documents is too complicated for some people (you) to understand. I try to make simple for you.

1) OK Constitution says can't put religious stuff on state property.
2) Government put religious stuff on state property.
3) Court read constitution, told government can't put religious stuff on state property.


That is it. Really truly, it is that simple. No interpretation or tortured legal reasoning needed. Just read one sentence of the Oklahoma Constitution and the case is done.

I have three questions and a statement:

1) Have you read the decision?   - I know the answer is no. So scroll up, click the link, and read the entire 1 page. Or admit your an idiot who talks about things they don't understand.
2) Explain how it is "illegal" utilizing the 200 year old doctrine outlined in Marbury v. Madison as it applies to plan reading of the Oklahoma Constitution.
3) Explain how interpreting plain language is political and, if concluding it is, explain how any decision of any court could then avoid being "political."

You exemplify everything wrong with America. It isn't disagreement I have a problem with, its ignorance. You have no clue what you're talking about and have no desire to improve that situation, yet we allow you to vote. This "universal suffrage" thing may need to be reconsidered.

I don't think it's ignorance so much as laziness, CF.  Many people will go to one source (I wonder which) to get spoon-fed their news and talking points for the day, without taking the time to research a little.  And the current electronic media isn't helping any.  On either side.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Red Arrow on July 09, 2015, 04:40:10 pm
You have no clue what you're talking about and have no desire to improve that situation, yet we allow you to vote. This "universal suffrage" thing may need to be reconsidered.

Suffrage with an extra "e" suffEr-age might explain it.   ;D



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on July 09, 2015, 06:33:50 pm
I don't think it's ignorance so much as laziness, CF.  Many people will go to one source (I wonder which) to get spoon-fed their news and talking points for the day, without taking the time to research a little.  And the current electronic media isn't helping any.  On either side.

WINNER!!!!!!


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Ibanez on July 10, 2015, 09:26:05 am
I don't think it's ignorance so much as laziness, CF.  Many people will go to one source (I wonder which) to get spoon-fed their news and talking points for the day, without taking the time to research a little.  And the current electronic media isn't helping any.  On either side.

or maybe as a baby he was dropped on his head one too many times.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: sauerkraut on July 10, 2015, 02:54:53 pm
We need to support Mary Fallin on this issue. Let's face it 70% of the residents of Oklahoma want the 10 commandments there. The ten commandments are in the Christian Bible but they are all good things to follow no matter what faith you follow, or even if you have no faith at all. Who can be against "Thou shalt not steal",  and "Thou shalt not kill", and so on they are all good things to follow. Our nation was founded on Christian principals. The 10 commandants need to stay, if you don't like them because they are Christian  how about having some tolerance toward the Christians. If  somehow the 10 commandments offend you remember- As far as I know-  There is no right in the constitution to not be offended. (unless it's buried in the 14th amendment like all the other stuff). The 10 commandments standing there does no harm. I favor keeping them there. :)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on July 10, 2015, 03:06:40 pm
We need to support Mary Fallin on this issue. Let's face it 70% of the residents of Oklahoma want the 10 commandments there. The ten commandments are in the Christian Bible but they are all good things to follow no matter what faith you follow, or even if you have no faith at all. Who can be against "Thou shalt not steal",  and "Thou shalt not kill", and so on they are all good things to follow. Our nation was founded on Christian principals. The 10 commandants need to stay, if you don't like them because they are Christian  how about having some tolerance toward the Christians. If  somehow the 10 commandments offend you remember- As far as I know-  There is no right in the constitution to not be offended. (unless it's buried in the 14th amendment like all the other stuff). The 10 commandments standing there does no harm. I favor keeping them there. :)

It’s got nothing to do with being against Judeo-Christian beliefs.  It’s the simple fact that a state legislator paid to erect this religious monument on state-owned property in clear violation of the Oklahoma Constitution barring any such monuments or shrines.  It was against the law for him to do so.  It is against the law for Governor Fallin to ignore the order of the court as well.

The logic Ritze used to erect this could also be used to erect Islamic, Shinto, Taoist, Satanist, etc. monuments.  It’s state government property where the state does its business.  It is simply not the place to litter the grounds with one or multiple religious monuments.

If you recall, the forefathers of this country fled religious oppression in Europe and wanted a clear separation of church and state.  Apparently the authors of Oklahoma’s constitution saw fit to delineate this as well.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on July 10, 2015, 04:54:39 pm
It’s got nothing to do with being against Judeo-Christian beliefs.  It’s the simple fact that a state legislator paid to erect this religious monument on state-owned property in clear violation of the Oklahoma Constitution barring any such monuments or shrines.  It was against the law for him to do so.  It is against the law for Governor Fallin to ignore the order of the court as well.

The logic Ritze used to erect this could also be used to erect Islamic, Shinto, Taoist, Satanist, etc. monuments.  It’s state government property where the state does its business.  It is simply not the place to litter the grounds with one or multiple religious monuments.

If you recall, the forefathers of this country fled religious oppression in Europe and wanted a clear separation of church and state.  Apparently the authors of Oklahoma’s constitution saw fit to delineate this as well.

Mic-drop.  Well done C.  Nice seeing you this afternoon at the Growler fill.  Pretty busy today.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: carltonplace on July 13, 2015, 07:48:55 am
We need to support Mary Fallin on this issue. Let's face it 70% of the residents of Oklahoma want the 10 commandments there. The ten commandments are in the Christian Bible but they are all good things to follow no matter what faith you follow, or even if you have no faith at all. Who can be against "Thou shalt not steal",  and "Thou shalt not kill", and so on they are all good things to follow. Our nation was founded on Christian principals. The 10 commandants need to stay, if you don't like them because they are Christian  how about having some tolerance toward the Christians. If  somehow the 10 commandments offend you remember- As far as I know-  There is no right in the constitution to not be offended. (unless it's buried in the 14th amendment like all the other stuff). The 10 commandments standing there does no harm. I favor keeping them there. :)

That sound was the entire interweb face palming after reading this.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 13, 2015, 08:14:24 am

If you recall, the forefathers of this country fled religious oppression in Europe and wanted a clear separation of church and state.  Apparently the authors of Oklahoma’s constitution saw fit to delineate this as well.



Actually, came here either under charter from the King's to start company 'branch' offices, AND to flee the persecution at home and start their own persecuting religious entity here.

Didn't really want a separation, since most created their own theocracy.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 13, 2015, 08:20:14 am
We need to support Mary Fallin on this issue. Let's face it 70% of the residents of Oklahoma want the 10 commandments there. The ten commandments are in the Christian Bible but they are all good things to follow no matter what faith you follow, or even if you have no faith at all. Who can be against "Thou shalt not steal",  and "Thou shalt not kill", and so on they are all good things to follow. Our nation was founded on Christian principals. The 10 commandants need to stay, if you don't like them because they are Christian  how about having some tolerance toward the Christians. If  somehow the 10 commandments offend you remember- As far as I know-  There is no right in the constitution to not be offended. (unless it's buried in the 14th amendment like all the other stuff). The 10 commandments standing there does no harm. I favor keeping them there. :)


So...you are actively advocating total disregard for the laws of both the state and the nation - in fact promoting the idea that Failin' should continue breaking the law!  And given past posts, your primary influences are people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and Rupert Murdoch, we can see how closely it follows that you are just going with their lead - since it's obvious you have shown no original thought around here - the lead to go against the various laws of the land when they just don't happen to 'like' them.  It's what they are and what they want.  And you blindly go along with it.





Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on July 13, 2015, 09:35:40 am
Mic-drop.  Well done C.  Nice seeing you this afternoon at the Growler fill.  Pretty busy today.

Great to see you too and to meet your cousin.  I’m really thrilled to see how well Eric has done with MBC and how popular the growler/pint Fridays have become. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: sauerkraut on July 13, 2015, 12:48:07 pm
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.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 13, 2015, 12:58:51 pm
I think you're an idiot you have the reading comprehension of cat food. I don't mean that as a true insult, I mean it as a statement of fact. You lack the intellectual capacity or otherwise refuse to discuss intelligently.

1) the separation of church and state was INTEGRAL to the Constitution. Read the document and supporting cases. Read the Federalist papers. Read something...

2) THE CASE IN OKLAHOMA WAS NOT DECIDED ON FEDERAL ISSUES, IT WAS DECIDED BASED ON THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.

THE OKLHOMA 10 COMMANDMENTS CASE WAS DECIDED BASED ON THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.

Got it? This is clearly stated in the opinion (which you haven't read), the news articles (you didn't bother with), and in this thread (which you won't read). Maybe all caps will do it?

3) In Oklahoma, it is against the law to use public property to even indirectly benefit any religion.

4) Constitutional issues don't go to a vote. We have a system of government with three branches (which Calling can't name). Fairness has nothing to do with it, its the rule of law.


Can you really be this stupid or are you just trolling? I honestly can't tell. If you really truly don't get it, I can try again. But I tried being detail and citing sources, and I tried no sources and using small words.

Hence, are you daft or obtuse?


Title: Re:
Post by: Ed W on July 13, 2015, 01:16:22 pm
Calling someone an idiot is simply rude. Try "you have the reading comprehension of cat food" instead.

In all honesty, the disconnect between facts and reality on one hand, and what passes for common sense and a fantasy version of public policy on the other, shouldn't be surprising to anyone reading the comments section of a newspaper or some of our less enlightened FB groups here in Oklahoma where breathtaking stupidity is the norm.


Title: Re:
Post by: Townsend on July 13, 2015, 01:38:00 pm
Calling someone an idiot is simply rude. Try "you have the reading comprehension of cat food" instead.

In all honesty, the disconnect between facts and reality on one hand, and what passes for common sense and a fantasy version of public policy on the other, shouldn't be surprising to anyone reading the comments section of a newspaper or some of our less enlightened FB groups here in Oklahoma where breathtaking stupidity is the norm.

I do admit, compared to some comments I've read on old TW and Facebook, Cat Food there is just a minion of the supreme dumbasses.

I'm assuming that since Sauerkraut is okay with the monument he's also okay with one to Satan.  This would make him a Satan supporter, thus a Satanist.

So all of these folks who want the monument on state property are devil worshipers and I can't support that.


Title: Re:
Post by: carltonplace on July 13, 2015, 02:45:39 pm
Calling someone an idiot is simply rude. Try "you have the reading comprehension of cat food" instead.

In all honesty, the disconnect between facts and reality on one hand, and what passes for common sense and a fantasy version of public policy on the other, shouldn't be surprising to anyone reading the comments section of a newspaper or some of our less enlightened FB groups here in Oklahoma where breathtaking stupidity is the norm.

He did it nicely though. My labrador could understand this based on the explanation that CF gave. Let's just stop talking about the 10 commandments and say we are removing the monument to the Decalogue. People won't care at all.

Really...this is the list that everyone loves so much, it's confounding.
1. No other gods
2. No graven images
3. Name in vain
4. Don't sweat on sabbath day
5. Honor ma and pa
6. No smoting
7. No sexy cheating
8. Don't pilfer
9. Don't lie about the homies
10. Don't covet (neighbor, neighbor's wife, neighbor's servants, animals, other stuff)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 13, 2015, 03:55:51 pm
I think you're an idiot. I don't mean that as a true insult, I mean it as a statement of fact. You lack the intellectual capacity or otherwise refuse to discuss intelligently.

1) the separation of church and state was INTEGRAL to the Constitution. Read the document and supporting cases. Read the Federalist papers. Read something...

2) THE CASE IN OKLAHOMA WAS NOT DECIDED ON FEDERAL ISSUES, IT WAS DECIDED BASED ON THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.

THE OKLHOMA 10 COMMANDMENTS CASE WAS DECIDED BASED ON THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.

Got it? This is clearly stated in the opinion (which you haven't read), the news articles (you didn't bother with), and in this thread (which you won't read). Maybe all caps will do it?

3) In Oklahoma, it is against the law to use public property to even indirectly benefit any religion.

4) Constitutional issues don't go to a vote. We have a system of government with three branches (which Calling can't name). Fairness has nothing to do with it, its the rule of law.


Can you really be this stupid or are you just trolling? I honestly can't tell. If you really truly don't get it, I can try again. But I tried being detail and citing sources, and I tried no sources and using small words.

Hence, are you daft or obtuse?


What is tragic is that he really is that way.  He really believes the stuff Faux News stuffs down his gullet.  And he is truly representative of a way too large segment of the Oklahoma population.

And that is the overlying goal of Failin', Inhofe, and the other ilk.  It is why they cut education funding instead of increasing it. 



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: sgrizzle on July 13, 2015, 06:57:31 pm
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.

Having a monument of a single religion is fine on state property so long as we didn't pay the construction costs? The SC tossed it out because it's on state property.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Markk on July 13, 2015, 11:12:19 pm
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. 


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 16, 2015, 12:02:09 pm
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.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on July 16, 2015, 12:03:56 pm
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"


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 16, 2015, 12:43:59 pm
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.

Quote from: Pruitt said something like
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.

Quote from: Pruitt said something like
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?

Quote from: Pruitt said something like
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.

Quote from: Pruitt said something like
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...

Quote from: Pruitt said something like
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.

Quote from: Pruitt said something like
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.

Quote from: Pruitt said something like
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?





Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 16, 2015, 12:46:15 pm
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/


Quote
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.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on July 16, 2015, 02:09:10 pm
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.

(http://scottpruitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/home-images-hold-21.jpg)

Uncanny resemblance:

(http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/MAD-Magazine-Alfred-E-Neuman-Norman-Mingo.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on July 16, 2015, 02:15:09 pm
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.


Title: Re:
Post by: Ed W on July 16, 2015, 02:52:24 pm
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......


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 16, 2015, 04:49:33 pm
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.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on July 16, 2015, 06:04:38 pm
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.






Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 17, 2015, 08:04:14 am
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.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: RecycleMichael on July 19, 2015, 01:53:33 am
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...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on July 27, 2015, 03:31:38 pm
No.

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


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on July 27, 2015, 04:07:32 pm
No.

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

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/25/250fbbb8f6be098b4f732bb3e919b15e1d7363ee1ec3adbeb938a560edfe8275.jpg)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 27, 2015, 04:10:59 pm
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....


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: rebound on July 28, 2015, 07:52:07 am
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....

I could support it the part about OU is taken out,  as that's still too much of a religious message...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 28, 2015, 08:00:42 am
I could support it the part about OU is taken out,  as that's still too much of a religious message...


Yeah, you are definitely right there...and not just a religious message, but a fanatical religious cult message at that!!

The wife's birthday has to stay, though!


I would still fund it.... 9 1/2 out of 10 ain't bad.  Better than any other "game of chance" we have in this state - especially the legislative game of chance...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on August 27, 2015, 03:30:26 pm
Per the TW - Lawyers are meeting on 9/11 to discuss how to remove the monument.

It seems simple, you get that guy out of jail for a day, give him a key to a Plymouth and tell him to remove the monument.

Then you get some of the construction guys at the capital to toss it in one of the debris bins.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 28, 2015, 08:10:59 am
Per the TW - Lawyers are meeting on 9/11 to discuss how to remove the monument.

It seems simple, you get that guy out of jail for a day, give him a key to a Plymouth and tell him to remove the monument.

Then you get some of the construction guys at the capital to toss it in one of the debris bins.


No opportunity for the award of political patronage gifts to your brother-in-law who has a backhoe and a road grader....  Oh, wait...that's Jim Inhofe...  Same principle applies.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 28, 2015, 01:01:47 pm
 I now know why I have been so confused, I was thinking we lived in a State based on civil laws and a constitution. In a theocracy, things have to be easier. The constitution Bible is very clear on the topic.

Quote
Romans 13:1-5

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

So, to keep on God's good side - do what the authority tells you to do.  When deciding issues of the Oklahoma Constitution, the OK Supreme Court is the highest authority. So we listen to them. Done and done!

Quote
Acts 5:29

But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men."

Ahh crap. Ok. I see there is some wiggle room. Maybe this one applies:

Quote
1 Timothy 6:1-21

Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. ...

See? If our benevolent overlords are masters, and the citizenry are slaves --- then the masters have been granted authority fro Jesus and we must obey. Otherwise, we are depraved. So it is OK to ignore the ruling of judges! Unless the judges are the masters and the politicians are the depraved puffed up conceited people who understand nothing. Hmmm...

Wait, wait... no, never mind. We should listen to the judges:

Quote
Deuteronomy 17:11-13

According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left. 12 The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the LORD your God, nor to the judge, that man shall die; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel. 13Then all the people will hear and be afraid, and will not act presumptuously again.

Oh crap. If we are a State based on Biblical law we have some serious issues to address. Apparently not obeying a judges order is taken kind of seriously in that book.  I think people dying is a bit extreme, and don't advocate for it, Im actually against it. I think we have to pass on that angle.

So lets compromise, lets obey the judges... but avoid the whole bit about someone dying. I think a stern reprimand, maybe wearing a dunce hat for a period of time equal to the delay would be enough to deter delaying the implementation of a judges order in the future.

Yay for civil law!

- - - - - - - -

Seriously, what's their to decide?  The monument gets taken down and put into storage. You can then return it to the donor or otherwise figure out what to do with it. This is like a child getting out of bed to get a glass of water, to go to the bathroom, then again to check for homework, oh, forgot to wash my face...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: rebound on August 28, 2015, 01:08:44 pm
Man, that was a long ways to go...  but I'm impressed.   :)
Nice post.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Ed W on August 28, 2015, 03:10:18 pm
Wanna bet they find some way to delay the monument removal? Perhaps it will require a environmental impact study, or an assessment by FEMA of potential flood control management problems, or maybe there's an endangered cricket in the grass nearby.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Markk on September 03, 2015, 05:38:51 pm
Unbelievable. 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/oklahoma-ag-scott-pruitt-continues-fight-over-ten-commandments/article_9bf8d628-5687-5b77-9070-ef5ceb5d1438.html



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on September 03, 2015, 06:37:25 pm
Unbelievable. 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/oklahoma-ag-scott-pruitt-continues-fight-over-ten-commandments/article_9bf8d628-5687-5b77-9070-ef5ceb5d1438.html



So, by Pruitt’s own logic, the moratorium halting the construction of any other religious monuments on capital grounds would violate the First Amendment and would show hostility to other religions as well.  Pruitt is dead set on trying to maintain a Christian theocracy in Oklahoma, isn’t he?

Quote
Pruitt’s latest legal filing in Oklahoma County District Court argues that the June 30 ruling is hostile to religion and therefore violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“In its decision to remove the monument, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that no matter how historically significant or beneficial to the state, state law prohibits any item on state property or to be funded by the state if it is at all ‘religious in nature,’” Pruitt said.

He said the ruling prohibits manifestations of faith from the public square and creates hostility toward religion.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Markk on September 03, 2015, 07:49:54 pm
So, by Pruitt’s own logic, the moratorium halting the construction of any other religious monuments on capital grounds would violate the First Amendment and would show hostility to other religions as well.  Pruitt is dead set on trying to maintain a Christian theocracy in Oklahoma, isn’t he?


Just his particular brand of Christian theocracy.  Not that there's anything wrong with that ...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on September 03, 2015, 08:24:24 pm
Just his particular brand of Christian theocracy.  Not that there's anything wrong with that ...


I'm quite sure that his version of Christian is that which furthers his political career. I don't buy that he believes in anything other than himself and naked pursuit of power.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 04, 2015, 08:12:26 am
I'm going to try and explain, as calmly as I can, just how insulting this filing is.  The posters above have already pointed out the hypocrisy of his position (It's totally nonreligious... what I mean is, if you make me remove it you're being hostile towards religion!), and his hypocrisy within hypocrisy (my religious idol is not religious at all, totally nope!). But from a legal perspective, his actions would be swiftly sanctioned if any other attorney did so. If it was done by a pro se, it would e stricken and the pro se directed not to file additional materials or appear before the court.

Here is the basic process of the case up until now:


08/19/2013 - CV-2013-1768 is filed in Oklahoma County District Court against the Oklahoma Capital Preservation Commission (the State of Oklahoma), asserting that the monument is religious and must be removed

09/13/2013 - Scott Pruit Enters the Case

09/13/2013 - ANSWER of the State of Oklahoma, asserting that the monument is purely secular and doesn't have to be removed

03/13/2014 - parties come to an agreement on discovery schedule

04/09/2014 - depositions and written discovery are ongoing (evidenced by notice of deposition on the docket)

04/28/2014 - discovery is still ongoing, there are subpoenas being issued, and motions to quash the same

05/22/2014 - MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by the State of Oklahoma (hey Judge, there are no real fact questions here. Just purely a legal question, resolve this case for us) arguing again that the monument is purely secular and not religious, so it can stay.

06/06/2014  - RESPONSE by the Plaintiffs, monument is religious, violates the Oklahoma Constitution, it has to go!

A few months of back and forth and additional briefing back and forth. Briefs by other people entered etc. etc. etc.

09/09/2014 - STATE WINS! No explanation is given by the Curt, but the Ten Commandments is defacto declared "non-religious" and therefore not in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution.

09/23/2014 - Order finalized in three sentences.

10/23/2014 - APPEAL filed

11/12/2014 - STATE ANSWERS the appeal. Argues that it is totally not religious and doesn't violate the state constitution.

01/08/2015 - Oklahoma Supreme Court orders additional briefing.

03/16/2015 - Plaintiff's file additional briefs. Arguing the monument is totally religious and must be removed.

Over the next month, several other briefs are filed by people not in the case.

05/08/2015 - the STATE files their brief. Arguing that it is entirely not religious, and even if it is, it is totally like any other monument that might be kinda religious and was allowed to stay in other places.

05/29/2015 - STATE responds to Plaintiff's brief. Saying the monument is NOT religious stop saying it is!

06/30/2015 - RULING - REVERSE AND REMANDED. TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS AND VIOLATES THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION

06/30/2015 - SAME DAY, State files a request for rehearing and stay of execution (almost like it was ready to be filed...)

07/09/2015 - Plaintiffs file a response, saying a rehearing is a waste of time, the state is stalling, lets move it!

07/15/2015 - State and others ask to file more briefs.

07/27/2015 - DENIED, we already heard this crap. Get on with it!

08/03/2015 - Plaintiffs - you lost, pay our costs!

08/12/2015 - State: we don't want to pay your costs!

08/17/2015 - RULING. Too bad. Pay their costs, you lost.

08/27/2015 - MANDATE ISSUED. REMOVE THE MONUMENT.

08/27/2015 - Oklahoma County Judge - OK people, lets set a hearing and talk about how this monument is coming down.

09/03/2015 - STATE OF OKLAHOMA, WE WANT TO CHANGE OUR ANSWER THAT WE FILED TWO YEARS AGO. WE HAD NO IDE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ARGUE THAT THE MONUMENT WAS RELIGIOUS AND THAT RELIGIOUS MONUMENTS CANT BE ON THE CAPITAL GROUNDS.

- - -- - -

Seriously, they filed a request to Amend their Answer.

Holy sh!t! Seriously? Two years later and after going back and froth with a dozen briefs, you are JUST NOW figuring that out?  This is sitting through a kids high school graduating, then getting a rejection letter from Harvard and  deciding you should have used birth control, so you'd like to pretty please throw him off a bridge and just start over. Can we call a mulligan on that one? Please?

To start with, I've never even heard of anyone wanting to amend their answer more than ~30 days after the discovery cutoff. Certainly not after summary judgment has been GRANTED. Let alone after they won and an appeal was filed. And I've never even considered someone asking to amend their answer after a case was fully litigated, an appeal was filed, all briefs were filed, a ruling made, a petition for rehearing denied, and a mandate issued. It never even crossed my mind... you had many, many chances to state your argument.

Secondly, "Ummm, I never really thought the Court would take the other guys side - so I want a redo changing my entire theory of the case" is a ridiculous reason to ask to amend.
 To come from the highest legal authority the executive branch has in this state is a flat out embarrassment.  If this is how things operated then EVERY Supreme Court case would result in someone going back and changing their answer. Because by its very nature, that Supreme Court is deciding big cases and clarifying points of law. So each and every time the loser can say "Gee, I didn't think I was going to lose. I'd like a re-do." Then if they change the ruling the new loser gets to just go back and reanswer and start over again?

Finally, I sttill can't see the filing on the docket. That means the media didn't pick up on it from reading the docket. Rather, it seems likely that Pruitt is grandstanding by sending a copy directly to the media and shouting LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME. Trying the case to the public is severely frowned upon by ethics rules. The Tulsa posted on the TulsaWorld isn't even signed... here's the motion:
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/24/924642b4-4025-574f-983e-a5283fb4b9be/55e8dd9bcc86a.pdf.pdf

Want to talk about frivolous lawsuits and wasting the Court's time?

Here's the underlying docket sheet:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&db=Oklahoma&number=CV-2013-1768

Here is the appellate docket sheet:
http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&cmid=115447&number=SD-113332

Here is the Order Denying Rehearing (the opinion in the case):
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=476438


I'm surprised there isn't a footnote announcing his run for governor. What a political hack job.





Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Markk on September 04, 2015, 09:48:46 am
some of those concurring opinions essentially call Pruitt an idiot.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Ed W on September 04, 2015, 05:09:07 pm
Scott Pruitt is an embarrassment not only to the people of Oklahoma but to conscientious attorneys everywhere.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on September 04, 2015, 06:52:00 pm
Scott Pruitt is an embarrassment not only to the people of Oklahoma but to conscientious attorneys everywhere.

And he'll win when he runs for governor unless someone shows Jesus disapproves.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Markk on September 05, 2015, 10:54:42 am
some of those concurring opinions essentially call Pruitt an idiot.

I'd be interested in knowing whether there is any precedent in Western legal jurisprudence that has permitted a litigant to amend an answer after the case has already been decided (and mandate issued) by the court of last resort.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 08, 2015, 08:38:01 am
I'd be interested in knowing whether there is any precedent in Western legal jurisprudence that has permitted a litigant to amend an answer after the case has already been decided (and mandate issued) by the court of last resort.

I can Answer that by reading the Motion to Amend ---

Not so far as the moving party was able to find.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 11, 2015, 02:51:35 pm
Holding on file here:

http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=oklahoma&bc=1030213727&cn=CV-2013-1768&fmt=pdf

It was far kinder than I would have been. Essentially the Court entered the re-entered the Order to remove the monument. The court calmly explained to Pruitt that after an appeal the Trial Court cannot grant leave to Amend an Answer. Far kinder than a law professor would have been to a mock trial participant.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Markk on September 11, 2015, 05:20:20 pm
Agreed.  But I still think the AG has a trick or two up his sleeve.The longer he complains about this, the more traction he gets with a coveted slice of the electorate.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on September 12, 2015, 10:30:42 am
Agreed.  But I still think the AG has a trick or two up his sleeve.The longer he complains about this, the more traction he gets with a coveted slice of the electorate.


His running-for-governor ads will be "He's willing to stand up against Obama and Oklahoma Supreme Court's anti-Christian agenda."

His handlers will have the "Christians under attack" electorate eating out of their hands.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 14, 2015, 07:50:29 am
50/50 on filing a frivolous Federal suit on the issue. Challenging the Oklahoma Supreme Court's violation of the State of Oklahoma's First Amendment Right to practice its religion under the US Constitution.  Or some such nonsense.

A friend asked me a scary question over the weekend: what happens if they just refuse to comply. Pull ye' ole' Andrew Jackson and say "Yeah, but the Supreme Court of Oklahoma doesn't have State Troopers, National Guard, or Capital police. The monument stays."

Result #1 is a constitutional crisis. When the Governor just ignores the laws of their own state, their isn't really a procedure in place for it. The government simply ceases to represent the rule of law and loses all legitimacy.

The easiest solution is to impeach the official who refuses to uphold the law, but as we have seen in Kentucky, if the law is unpopular oaths to uphold it aren't really taken that seriously. So that's unlikely to happen.

One could foresee a request by the Plaintiff for Federal intervention, but unlike historical precedent the Federal intervention would be for violating a State Order, not a Federal Order. Not sure how that works out, but I can see Pruitt really really enjoying the "Obama sent troops to take down our Christian heritage!" theme.

Would the actions of the mentally ill guy who ran it down previously remain criminal if he did a repeat performance should the Governor decide not to remove the monument (is removing an illegal monument illegal)?

An interesting law review article could be written on the subject of a State deciding to simply ignore its own Courts. As the right wing hostility towards the rule of law continues to grow (activist judges! Making law from the bench! Unelected officials! Defund them. Impeach them. Ignore them. (see, e.g., Huckabee)'s recent revelations, Kentucky, Kansas, and our potential situation), the issue is ripe for analysis.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on September 14, 2015, 08:27:10 am
50/50 on filing a frivolous Federal suit on the issue. Challenging the Oklahoma Supreme Court's violation of the State of Oklahoma's First Amendment Right to practice its religion under the US Constitution.  Or some such nonsense.

A friend asked me a scary question over the weekend: what happens if they just refuse to comply. Pull ye' ole' Andrew Jackson and say "Yeah, but the Supreme Court of Oklahoma doesn't have State Troopers, National Guard, or Capital police. The monument stays."

Result #1 is a constitutional crisis. When the Governor just ignores the laws of their own state, their isn't really a procedure in place for it. The government simply ceases to represent the rule of law and loses all legitimacy.

The easiest solution is to impeach the official who refuses to uphold the law, but as we have seen in Kentucky, if the law is unpopular oaths to uphold it aren't really taken that seriously. So that's unlikely to happen.

One could foresee a request by the Plaintiff for Federal intervention, but unlike historical precedent the Federal intervention would be for violating a State Order, not a Federal Order. Not sure how that works out, but I can see Pruitt really really enjoying the "Obama sent troops to take down our Christian heritage!" theme.

Would the actions of the mentally ill guy who ran it down previously remain criminal if he did a repeat performance should the Governor decide not to remove the monument (is removing an illegal monument illegal)?

An interesting law review article could be written on the subject of a State deciding to simply ignore its own Courts. As the right wing hostility towards the rule of law continues to grow (activist judges! Making law from the bench! Unelected officials! Defund them. Impeach them. Ignore them. (see, e.g., Huckabee)'s recent revelations, Kentucky, Kansas, and our potential situation), the issue is ripe for analysis.

And what's funny is that they aren't 'making law'.  They'r enforcing current law.  Watching the comments on the day the order was handed down was quite amusing.  As I've said before, it's no wonder Oklahoma is near last in education when people don't know how their government works.  I learned that in 7th grade Civics class.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on September 18, 2015, 12:51:04 pm
Fallin spokesman: Governor will respect court’s decision
http://kfor.com/2015/09/16/fallin-spokesman-governor-will-respect-courts-decision

OKLAHOMA CITY - A spokesman for Governor Mary Fallin said the executive office will "live with the outcome either way" after the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals granted Richard Glossip a two-week stay of execution.

"The Governor's job is to follow the law," said spokesman Alex Weintz. "She's had respect for the courts and the justice system all along, and that's what this is about as far as we're concerned, doing justice and what the courts tell us to do."


..but we cant wait to carry out a state-ordered murder of someone who might have been wrongly convicted.
Two-faced horsemeat-eater.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 18, 2015, 07:11:17 pm
I took this as a positive sign. She will violate the Constitution in spite of Court Orders when it comes to putting up populist monuments, but she draws the line at murder (killing someone contrary to a Court order would be murder).

That's progress!

Though Shall Not Kill (when the Court Orders you not to)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on March 15, 2016, 11:30:00 am
Hindus to Seek Statue at Oklahoma Capitol if Law Changes

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0Mq7zP68MqU/TWRiugk0fdI/AAAAAAAABSU/zmzUzjfPSC0/s320/hanuman-hinduism-ramayana-rama-bajrang-bali3.jpg)

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/hindus-seek-statue-oklahoma-capitol-if-law-changes (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/hindus-seek-statue-oklahoma-capitol-if-law-changes)

Quote
TULSA, Okla. (AP) — A Hindu organization plans to increase its efforts to put a deity statue on the Oklahoma Capitol grounds if voters approve a proposed change to the state's constitution.

The Tulsa World reports that the Legislature has approved versions of a question that seeks to delete language from the constitution that prohibits the use of public money or property for the support or benefit of religion.

The language was cited in a recent court decision that removed the Ten Commandments from the Capitol grounds. If the proposal becomes law, a statewide vote would be held on whether to remove the wording and return the Ten Commandments to the Capitol.

Universal Society of Hinduism president Rajan Zed says that if the change is approved, the organization would renew its request to place a statue of Lord Hanuman on the property.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on March 21, 2016, 09:01:23 am
Geee... it seems like we have done this before. Many times before. Passing laws that we know are unconstitutional, then whining about the cost of defending them and the "activist Courts" who throw them out. Even if Oklahoma gets rid of the separation of church and state, it still exists at the Federal level... which trumps Oklahoma law. Every single statement I've heard on the issue demonstrates either blatant ignorance, or an obtuseness that is obnoxious.

It isn't a difficult concept. If you really want the Ten Commandments on display you have to repeal that provision of the Oklahoma Constitution, then you have to set aside a monument park that enables everyone who wants to express an opinion via  monument to do so. The Christian Monument doesn't get more special treatment than the Hindu ones, Satanists, Flying Spaghetti Monster (may we all be touched by His noodly appendage), Moooslim monument, or whatever.

BUT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE IN THE SUPREME COURT!!!

Yes, yes they are. Along with the laws given by Confucius, Muhammad, Grotius, John Marshal, Hammurabi, and... you know, things and people known for giving laws. Kind of like a monument park... oh wait... that's what we DONT want.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 21, 2016, 10:01:06 am
Geee... it seems like we have done this before. Many times before. Passing laws that we know are unconstitutional, then whining about the cost of defending them and the "activist Courts" who throw them out. Even if Oklahoma gets rid of the separation of church and state, it still exists at the Federal level... which trumps Oklahoma law. Every single statement I've heard on the issue demonstrates either blatant ignorance, or an obtuseness that is obnoxious.



The insidious thing is that it is neither ignorance nor obtuseness.  It is a radical, extremist, right wing, political agenda to impose a theocracy upon the US.  It really is that simple.

And because that plays so well with fanatics and the weak minded, we have the situation of Okrahoma!


Thinking people must not fall into the trap of believing, even for a second, that it is ignorance, or any other mental deficiency, other than dedication to a extremist right wing radical agenda guiding the effort.

Rust never sleeps!



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Townsend on April 21, 2016, 11:36:45 am
State Senate Passes Ten Commandments Monument Legislation

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/state-senate-passes-ten-commandments-monument-legislation (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/state-senate-passes-ten-commandments-monument-legislation)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/x_large/public/201202/3144482-832567063.jpg)

Quote
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A proposed constitutional amendment that asks voters to return a Ten Commandments monument to the Oklahoma Capitol grounds has been approved by the Oklahoma Senate.

Without debate, the Senate voted 39-5 Wednesday for the House-passed measure. It's similar to a measure already approved by the Senate.

The resolution calls for a statewide referendum on whether to abolish an article of the Oklahoma Constitution that prohibits the use of state funds to support a religion. The state Supreme Court relied on that constitutional requirement in June when it ordered a Ten Commandments monument removed from the Capitol grounds.

The 6-foot-tall granite monument was authorized by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2009 and was erected in 2012. Its placement led other groups to seek their own statues.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 21, 2016, 01:10:43 pm
No. That isn't what it does. Stupid news organization. What it does is abolish the separation of Church and State under the Oklahoma Constitution. 

The RESULT of the referendum is essentially to ask if they can place the monument on the capital grounds. But the motion is merely to strip the constitutional amendment. On paper, it has nothing to do with the 10 Commandments Monument.

Quote
OK Constitution, Article 2
§ 5. Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.

No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

Of course, the purpose is to put up the protestant 10 Commandments to Catholics, Jews, and Muslim's know where they stand. Let alone Hindus or other religions that don't believe in the 10 Commandments at all. Ha! We'll show them!

Of course the actual result is an immediate challenge by the Satanists (who have a statute ready) and the Hindus (who have funded one but apparently don't have the statute ready) and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to put up their monuments as a reflection of their cultural and historic influence on the laws and society of the United States (because this is totally a historic issue and in no way religious).

Of course the outcome is going to be a denial of any other religious request along bogus reasons and a federal lawsuit which Pruitt will lose (along with his suit against Texas, Arkansas, Colorado, on gay rights, on the original monument, on...) and we will pay for. Then an appeal, which we will lose and pay for. And a rejection by the Supreme Court  (if we ever appoint a full Court again because the President doesn't get to do that, we now wait until the NEXT president after a vacancy opens because we believe in the Constitution but only when it benefits us). The monument will then be taken down after a couple of years of stalling and speeches will be made about activist Courts "making" new law as Governor Pruitt regales us all with tales of how he stood up to the Federal Government (and almost always lost).

Remember: my religion good, yours bad.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on April 21, 2016, 02:56:45 pm
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/93fe9a96-c24e-4780-a409-ca2d36d758d2-151206174150-lva1-app6891/95/the-bible-belt-2-638.jpg?cb=1449424036)


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on January 28, 2017, 11:38:57 am
Will our lawmakers NEVER learn.  We voted on this.  What's going to make the result change?  Asking again.  It's like a five year old continually asking their parents if they can play outside once they've been told.

http://kfor.com/2017/01/26/lawmaker-renews-ten-commandments-fight/


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Conan71 on January 28, 2017, 04:00:37 pm
Will our lawmakers NEVER learn.  We voted on this.  What's going to make the result change?  Asking again.  It's like a five year old continually asking their parents if they can play outside once they've been told.

http://kfor.com/2017/01/26/lawmaker-renews-ten-commandments-fight/

Come on people!  How many face palms can we get here?


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: swake on January 28, 2017, 04:07:18 pm
Quote
Newly elected Sen. Micheal Bergstrom (R-Adair) wants voters to have another chance to bring the Ten Commandments monument back to capitol grounds.

Maybe he's been smoking some of that stuff from Adair...


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Red Arrow on January 28, 2017, 06:15:28 pm
Come on people!  How many face palms can we get here?

There's (evidently) always room for one more.



Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Ed W on January 29, 2017, 10:26:10 am
Will our lawmakers NEVER learn.  We voted on this.  What's going to make the result change?  Asking again.  It's like a five year old continually asking their parents if they can play outside once they've been told.

http://kfor.com/2017/01/26/lawmaker-renews-ten-commandments-fight/

Remember, this has nothing to do with the legality of establishing a monument and everything to do with appealing to the conservative base, guaranteeing they'll vote for whatever numbnutz tosses that red meat. Sure, it's a huge waste of taxpayer money, but it serves their re-election plans.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 30, 2017, 08:49:33 am
That article is awesome.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
"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.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: BKDotCom on January 30, 2017, 09:03:40 am
Particularly that bit about "no Gods but me" and not bowing to "idols."

Read that as 'not bowing to "idiots"'

That's a command I could get behind.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: patric on June 28, 2017, 11:56:04 am
https://www.facebook.com/Crunkster430/videos/10213320261704638/
The Whirled reported he's a product of the Victory Bible College in Tulsa.

No more crazy than the extremists who believe their religion exempts them from the law.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Tulsa Zephyr on June 28, 2017, 04:57:29 pm
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/usworld/man-who-drove-into-oklahoma-s-ten-commandments-monument-arrested/article_bf74e460-a293-534f-bab0-0abb4432feaa.html

Apparently this is the same guy who drove over the Ten Commandments in our state capitol.  Good job!


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: Hoss on June 28, 2017, 05:07:53 pm
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/usworld/man-who-drove-into-oklahoma-s-ten-commandments-monument-arrested/article_bf74e460-a293-534f-bab0-0abb4432feaa.html

Apparently this is the same guy who drove over the Ten Commandments in our state capitol.  Good job!


Yeah, I was getting ready to post that as well....so many people are complaining that he's either an atheist or Satanist.  He's evidently a Christian...go figure.


Title: Re: 10 Commandments to go on State Capitol
Post by: sgrizzle on June 29, 2017, 05:45:44 am
Quote
In a 2015 email to the Tulsa World, Reed apologized for wrecking Oklahoma’s monument and said he suffered from mental health issues.
This monument thing also causes me mental health issues

Quote
“resorting to property destruction is never the answer to a policy disagreement.”
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Boston_Tea_Party_Currier_colored.jpg/375px-Boston_Tea_Party_Currier_colored.jpg)