Ten Commandments monument at Capitol unconstitutional, must come down

Eulogy

OKLAHOMA CITY –  A Ten Commandments monument on the Oklahoma Capitol grounds is a religious symbol and must be removed because it violates the state's constitutional ban on using public property to benefit a religion, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

Oklahoma's highest court said the Ten Commandments chiseled into the 6-foot-tall granite monument, which was privately funded by a Republican legislator, are "obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths."

The 7-2 ruling overturns a decision by a district court judge who determined the monument could stay.

Attorney General Scott Pruitt had argued that the monument was historical in nature and nearly identical to a Texas monument that was found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Oklahoma justices said the local monument violated the state's constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.

"Quite simply, the Oklahoma Supreme Court got it wrong," Pruitt said in a statement. "The court completely ignored the profound historical impact of the Ten Commandments on the foundation of Western law."

Pruitt said his office would ask the court for a rehearing and request that the monument be allowed to stay until the court considers his request.

Since the original monument was erected in 2012, several other groups have asked to put up their own monuments on the Capitol grounds. Among them is a group that wants to erect a 7-foot-tall statue that depicts Satan as Baphomet, a goat-headed figure with horns, wings and a long beard.

A Hindu leader in Nevada, an animal rights group, and the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also have made requests.

Rep. Mike Ritze, a Republican from Broken Arrow whose family paid about $10,000 for the monument's construction, pushed the bill authorizing the monument. He said Tuesday he hoped the attorney general would appeal the ruling.

The original monument was smashed into pieces in October, when someone drove a car across the Capitol lawn and crashed into it. A 29-year-old man who was arrested the next day was admitted to a hospital for mental health treatment, and formal charges were never filed.

A new monument was built and put up again in January.

Eulogy

I would have loved to see the statue of the flying spaghetti monster in front of the capital building.

ExpendableYouth

I second that. All praise be to the son of Ragu.

0patience

The problem with something like this is that it sets a precedent.
There are monuments all over the US that have some religious context in them.

Are they going to remove all of them now?

It amazes me at how people are offended by things that don't even concern them and they want to force change based on their opinions. 

Believe in what you want, but don't force your opinions on others.

Example:
My neighbor painted their house a hideous color, but while other neighbors want to force them to repaint it, it isn't my place to say anything. It's their home.
The funny thing is, I find it amusing how much importance the other neighbors are putting on it.

Bob_Luken

Birds of a feather,................. tend to b-i-t-c-h about birds with different feathers. 

Bob_Luken

$10,000? Yikes. I saw the monument. looked a little small for 10K

Eulogy

I wonder if any of you would have had a problem removing the monument if it was on public property and depicting a  satanic or Islamic message. 

Dark_Roast

0patience said:

The problem with something like this is that it sets a precedent.
There are monuments all over the US that have some religious context in them.

Are they going to remove all of them now?

It amazes me at how people are offended by things that don't even concern them and they want to force change based on their opinions. 

Believe in what you want, but don't force your opinions on others.

Example:
My neighbor painted their house a hideous color, but while other neighbors want to force them to repaint it, it isn't my place to say anything. It's their home.
The funny thing is, I find it amusing how much importance the other neighbors are putting on it.

You may feel differently when you try to sell your house that is neighbor to a hideously painted house! 

0patience

Dark_Roast said:

You may feel differently when you try to sell your house that is neighbor to a hideously painted house! 

See this is where folks take things too seriously. 
I'll be in this house until I retire and even if I sell it for half it's market value, I make a profit. I owe nothing on it and as long as I keep the taxes up, I don't care.

I guess I can see it if I looked at it as an investment. 

Bob_Luken

I don't think any new ten commandments should have been installed in public places in the past 40 years or so. It DOES set a bad precedent. The ones that have been there forever should have been grandfathered in but, at some point these ten commandment proponents of all these new monuments and plaques should have realized the can of worms they were opening up.  

Rhamlin

Eulogy said:

I wonder if any of you would have had a problem removing the monument if it was on public property and depicting a  satanic or Islamic message. 

Yeah I would. I know it's hypocritical and I own up to that. I'd tolerate an Islamic monument as long as it wasn't Jihadists in nature  but a Satanic one I'd probably want to crash my car into it. Accidentally of course. 

raisindot

What if it was a sign that said "Praise Jebus?" 

Amos_Umwhat

It seems every tail wants to wag a dog these days.

The3Stogies

Historical can change to hysterical quickly can't it, lol.  I don't see the big deal leaving it there but I don't live there either.  It seems to me that we, as a country, are more offended by things than we used to be, not only offended but feel we have to punish the offender in some way.