The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

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.

But if it's purpose is secular, it stays.

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."

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.

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.

Two too many lawyers playing debate.

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?

...it is all about CONTEXT.

One idiot playing with himself.

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.

Lol.....

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]

Jesus Said
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus Said
And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

Jesus said
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

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 . . . .

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.

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.

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.

The Old Testament is nothing more than a history lesson to God's law before Christ. 

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.

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? 

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"

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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

By weight, not volume.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

They can't even spell it right.  LOL.

So, what are the ten condiments?

So, what are the ten condiments?

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.

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.

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.

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? 
 

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. 

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. 

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.

The 10 Commandments is not Christian.

It IS Judeo-Christian though.

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

No, it is also Islamic.

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.

you will find many agnostics and atheists within those walls every Sunday.

Doing what?

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.

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.     
   

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.

No, it is also Islamic.

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.

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.     

         

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. 

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. 

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 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 an interest in attending the Unitarian Church this Sunday? 

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

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. 

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

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. 

Why would you think there is fear?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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. 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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. 

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.

____________________________

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.   

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.

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

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

It could have been avoided if the Satanic statue had been there to block for it.  ;D

This AND Honey Boo Boo?

Hell in a hand basket...

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. 

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

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

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 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 like all the people really mad that a religious symbol was vandalized, when they JUST had the 10 Commandments declared a secural monument.

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.

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

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.

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!

It was an actual Satanist.

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)

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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)

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)

This might fly

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

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.

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.

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)

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

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

(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.

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)

Governor said she "tain't movin' these 'mandments."

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

(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.

“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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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. :)

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

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

No.

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

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....

I could support it the part about OU is taken out,  as that's still too much of a religious message...

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.

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.

Acts 5:29

But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men."

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. ...

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.

Unbelievable. 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/oklahoma-ag-scott-pruitt-continues-fight-over-ten-commandments/article_9bf8d628-5687-5b77-9070-ef5ceb5d1438.html

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.

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 ...

Scott Pruitt is an embarrassment not only to the people of Oklahoma but to conscientious attorneys everywhere.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

Newly elected Sen. Micheal Bergstrom (R-Adair) wants voters to have another chance to bring the Ten Commandments monument back to capitol grounds.

Come on people!  How many face palms can we get here?

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/

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.

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.

But, he insists the statue - which he said conveys values held by all faiths - is important to his constituents.

"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."

Particularly that bit about "no Gods but me" and not bowing to "idols."

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!

In a 2015 email to the Tulsa World, Reed apologized for wrecking Oklahoma’s monument and said he suffered from mental health issues.

“resorting to property destruction is never the answer to a policy disagreement.”

OKLAHOMA CITY — A bill that would allow for the display of the Ten Commandments along with historical documents on public property passed the state Senate on Thursday.

House Bill 2177 by Rep. John Bennett, R-Sallisaw, and Sen. Joseph Silk, R-Broken Bow, passed by a 39-3 vote and heads to the House for consideration.

“Every county, municipality, city, town, school or any other political subdivision is authorized to display, in its public buildings and on its grounds, replicas of historical documents including, but not limited to, the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Oklahoma Constitution and other historically significant documents in the form of statues, monuments, memorials, tablets or any other display that respects the dignity and solemnity of such documents,” according to the measure.

An amendment to penalize lawmakers who author unconstitutional bills failed to secure approval.

The bill comes after the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that a privately funded Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds was religious and had to be removed.

It also comes after voters in 2016 rejected State Question 790, which would have allowed the Ten Commandments monument to be displayed at the Capitol.

The question, put on the ballot by state lawmakers, would have removed the portion of the Oklahoma Constitution that the Supreme Court used to order removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the Capitol grounds.

Sen. Micheal Bergstrom, R-Adair, said the measure would not force cities, counties or other entities to display the monuments, but would allow for it.

He said the Ten Commandments would have to be displayed “with other historical documents.”

Senate Minority Leader John Sparks, D-Norman, attempted to amend the bill.

Sparks’ amendment said that if the attorney general had to defend a lawsuit over legislation and lost, the money for the legal costs would be taken from road funds in the district of the authors of the unconstitutional measure and be given to the attorney general.

Sparks said that in his 12 years in office, at least 25 measures attempting to make a point have been found unconstitutional.

He said some lawmakers want to make political points, particularly if someone else pays for it.

Sparks told Bergstrom that he could see few other cases where the likelihood of it being found unconstitutional were as close to 100 percent as the bill in question.

“If it is important enough for certain members to push a certain issue, those members should be willing to bear the cost,” Sparks said.

Bergstrom took issue with the amendment, saying it appeared to be a threat against authors who sponsor controversial measures.

Sparks said the constitutionality of the measure had nothing to do with controversy. If members are held responsible, he said, they might use a little more discretion.

“That is all — just a little personal responsibility,” Sparks said.

His amendment failed by a vote of 7 to 33.

Sen. Casey Murdock, R-Felt, presented the bill. He said he believed the measure would be found constitutional because it requires that the Ten Commandments be displayed with other historical documents.

Bill to allow Ten Commandments monuments passes state Senate
Ten Commandments would be allowed on public land alongside historical docs

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/bill-to-allow-commandments-monuments-passes-state-senate/article_063eaace-161d-5214-9122-5964456371d7.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/bill-to-allow-commandments-monuments-passes-state-senate/article_063eaace-161d-5214-9122-5964456371d7.html)

My opinion is the asshats need to learn to prioritize. 

requires that the Ten Commandments be displayed with other historical documents

Bill to allow Ten Commandments monuments passes state Senate
Ten Commandments would be allowed on public land alongside historical docs

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/bill-to-allow-commandments-monuments-passes-state-senate/article_063eaace-161d-5214-9122-5964456371d7.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/bill-to-allow-commandments-monuments-passes-state-senate/article_063eaace-161d-5214-9122-5964456371d7.html)

My opinion is the asshats need to learn to prioritize. 

This is nothing short of insane.

The people voted on this last election directly, and voted it down 57% to 43%.

The legislature doesn't give a damn about the people of this state or what they want.

Brought to you by the same people who think gun possession is a "God given right".

There are so many unintended consequences of the no license to carry bill it is unreal.  Least of which is it will kill Oklahoma's reciprocity with states which actually do care if you know how to handle the firearm in your pocket.  Sorry, major pissed off point for the Mrs. and I over the last 24 hours, especially with her father who lobbies on behalf of the Oklahoma Rifle Association which said this bill was a shitsandwich from the beginning.

You will still need the permit to be able to carry in other states and reciprocity will still apply.

What if my god instructed me to smash all the monuments to every false god?  Would religious freedom mean I couldn't be prosecuted for carrying out such an act of faith? I could claim His Noodly Appendage compelled me.

That's not the way it worked when the other states passed constitutional carry (there are like 13 now.)

You will still need the permit to be able to carry in other states and reciprocity will still apply.

Brought to you by the same people who think gun possession is a "God given right".

There are so many unintended consequences of the no license to carry bill it is unreal.  Least of which is it will kill Oklahoma's reciprocity with states which actually do care if you know how to handle the firearm in your pocket.  Sorry, major pissed off point for the Mrs. and I over the last 24 hours, especially with her father who lobbies on behalf of the Oklahoma Rifle Association which said this bill was a shitsandwich from the beginning.

Perhaps I didn't say that correctly.  If you live in a "Constitutional carry" state, you may not be welcome to carry your firearm in a permit state without a permit.

It is my understanding that Oklahoma's constitutional carry will also be limited to Oklahoma residents.    Seems fair to me.

Having sat through a concealed carry class, I'm not sure there was really much to be gained there.   Most of it was focused on how you shouldn't pull out your pistol to solve arguments.   Shooting 50 rounds was a far cry from teaching gun proficiency.   

The class if far too short for anything but the basics of how to handle a firearm.  But (and I'm serious), the very act of going to the trouble of signing up and completing the class brings awareness.   Sometimes simply having someone instruct on "not being a dumb@$$" with a gun will have positive effects.

It is my understanding that Oklahoma's constitutional carry will also be limited to Oklahoma residents.    Seems fair to me.

Having sat through a concealed carry class, I'm not sure there was really much to be gained there.   Most of it was focused on how you shouldn't pull out your pistol to solve arguments.   Shooting 50 rounds was a far cry from teaching gun proficiency.   

Stolen Valor: The Man Behind Oklahoma's Ten Commandments Statue

Broken Arrow Rep. Mike Ritze accused of embellishing military record; DAV removes him from its rolls
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/broken-arrow-rep-mike-ritze-accused-of-embellishing-military-record/article_8c292a5b-8d41-573b-a60b-c790f1018e12.html

The Quran is equally historic in the history of western civilization. Spain was Muslim for centuries and only the battle of Tours prevented it from spreading into France. History would have been quite different without the Crusades and the Quran as their animus. Even now, parts of eastern Europe are Muslim. We should have just as big a monument to the Quran at the capitol building.

The Vikings had a huge impact. They deserve a monument too.

Thou shall not embellish.

(https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/cd/31/d5/the-viking-statue-in.jpg)(https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/08/17/cb/ea/photo0jpg.jpg)

TripAdvisor says we should put something like this around the capitol.   (Although the Indian can NOT hold cigars as that suddenly makes it racist.)

 ...and I didnt see Festivus represented.

Mattress Mary doing a pole dance? Ewww. That's just nasty.

...and I didnt see Festivus represented.

Mattress Mary doing a pole dance? Ewww. That's just nasty.

I shopped that around the office and it got rave reviews...

Ritze is about like Dahm, though, so not at all surprised at the lack of integrity.