The Oklahoma Supreme Court rules against 10 Commndment monument

[Bill the Cat]

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/oklahoma-supreme-court-orders-removal/index.html

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the state must remove a 6-foot tall granite monument of the Ten Commandments from its capitol because it violates the state's constitutional ban against the use of public funds or property to benefit a religion.

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

The Purge continues.

[Cow Poke]

How is the Oklahoma situation different from the Texas situation, which SCOTUS has upheld?

Defenders of the statue have argued that the commandments were placed on the capitol grounds as “historical context,” given the influence the Ten Commandments had on the formation of American law. They also argued that it was similar to a Ten Commandments statue in Texas whose legality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Littlejoe]

How is the Oklahoma situation different from the Texas situation, which SCOTUS has upheld?

Defenders of the statue have argued that the commandments were placed on the capitol grounds as “historical context,” given the influence the Ten Commandments had on the formation of American law. They also argued that it was similar to a Ten Commandments statue in Texas whose legality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Does Texas have a State Constitutional ban similar to Oklahoma's? AFAICT, it was the State Constitution that was upheld...

[Cow Poke]

Does Texas have a State Constitutional ban similar to Oklahoma's? AFAICT, it was the State Constitution that was upheld...

Ah, ok!

[Littlejoe]

Which is one more reason I DON"T live in Oklahoma...

[Tassman]

The Purge continues.

And so it should. No religion should get preferential treatment, especially at state expense.

[Tassman]

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/oklahoma-supreme-court-orders-removal/index.html

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the state must remove a 6-foot tall granite monument of the Ten Commandments from its capitol because it violates the state's constitutional ban against the use of public funds or property to benefit a religion.

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, by a whopping 7-2 margin. The state Supreme Court took just a few paragraphs to rule that the monument has got to go because it violates Article 2, Section 5 of the state constitution. So why the outrage...are believers exempt from the law?

https://richarddawkins.net/2015/07/o...-commandments/

[Cow Poke]

And so it should. No religion should get preferential treatment, especially at state expense.

You may get what you want, but eventually will not want what you got.

[Jedidiah]

You may get what you want, but eventually will not what what you got.

Except Tassy does not live in the US so it won't hurt him when we go under.

[seer]

Except Tassy does not live in the US so it won't hurt him when we go under.

Then who will help them when the Chinese come marching in? Like the Japanese wanted to. Oh wait - the Chinese are Communists - Tass will fit right in. Commissar Tassman, has a nice ring...

[Tassman]

Then who will help them when the Chinese come marching in? Like the Japanese wanted to. Oh wait - the Chinese are Communists - Tass will fit right in. Commissar Tassman, has a nice ring...

What does this have to do with the removal of a religious symbol from US state property? Answer: Nothing!

The state Supreme Court recognised by a 7-2 margin that the monument had got to go because it violated Article 2, Section 5 of the State Constitution. So, are believers above the law in your view? Do you, in the secular state of the USA, demand special treatment as a Christian to which you're not entitled?

“The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion.” ~Founding Father Charles Pinckney, Constitutional Convention, 1787. Hence a Judeo/Christian monument on the lawns of the State Capitol that gives a contrary message to this principle must go... as the court recognised.

[seer]

“The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion.” ~Founding Father Charles Pinckney, Constitutional Convention, 1787. Hence a Judeo/Christian monument on the lawns of the State Capitol that gives a contrary message to this principle must go... as the court recognised.

Well well yes, but...

Morality in the Army

Congress was apprehensive about the moral condition of the American army and navy and took steps to see that Christian morality prevailed in both organizations. In the Articles of War, seen below, governing the conduct of the Continental Army (seen above) (adopted, June 30, 1775; revised, September 20, 1776), Congress devoted three of the four articles in the first section to the religious nurture of the troops. Article 2 "earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers to attend divine services." Punishment was prescribed for those who behaved "indecently or irreverently" in churches, including courts-martial, fines and imprisonments. Chaplains who deserted their troops were to be court-martialed.

Morality in the Navy

Congress particularly feared the navy as a source of moral corruption and demanded that skippers of American ships make their men behave. The first article in Rules and Regulations of the Navy (below), adopted on November 28, 1775, ordered all commanders "to be very vigilant . . . to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral and disorderly practices." The second article required those same commanders "to take care, that divine services be performed twice a day on board, and a sermon preached on Sundays." Article 3 prescribed punishments for swearers and blasphemers: officers were to be fined and common sailors were to be forced "to wear a wooden collar or some other shameful badge of distinction."

Aitken's Bible Endorsed by Congress

The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States." This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project.

Aitken published Congress's recommendation of September 1782 and related documents (Item 115) as an imprimatur on the two pages following his title page. Aitken's Bible, published under Congressional patronage, was the first English language Bible published on the North American continent.

Northwest Ordinance

In the summer of 1787 Congress revisited the issue of religion in the new western territories and passed, July 13, 1787, the famous Northwest Ordinance. Article 3 of the Ordinance contained the following language: "Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." Scholars have been puzzled that, having declared religion and morality indispensable to good government, Congress did not, like some of the state governments that had written similar declarations into their constitutions, give financial assistance to the churches in the West.

Christianizing the Delawares

In this resolution, Congress makes public lands available to a group for religious purposes. Responding to a plea from Bishop John Ettwein (1721-1802), Congress voted that 10,000 acres on the Muskingum River in the present state of Ohio "be set apart and the property thereof be vested in the Moravian Brethren . . . or a society of the said Brethren for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity." The Delaware Indians were the intended beneficiaries of this Congressional resolution.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

Congregationalists and Anglicans who, before 1776, had received public financial support, called their state benefactors "nursing fathers" (Isaiah 49:23). After independence they urged the state governments, as "nursing fathers," to continue succoring them. Knowing that in the egalitarian, post-independence era, the public would no longer permit single denominations to monopolize state support, legislators devised "general assessment schemes." Religious taxes were laid on all citizens, each of whom was given the option of designating his share to the church of his choice. Such laws took effect in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire and were passed but not implemented in Maryland and Georgia.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html

BTW Tass, you don't want to get into a quote war with me on this, I know way more about this subject than you.

[shunyadragon]

How is the Oklahoma situation different from the Texas situation, which SCOTUS has upheld?

Defenders of the statue have argued that the commandments were placed on the capitol grounds as “historical context,” given the influence the Ten Commandments had on the formation of American law. They also argued that it was similar to a Ten Commandments statue in Texas whose legality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I argue that the "historical context" of our American Law has a broader source of influences then the 'Ten Commandments.' The influence is older and broader including Vedic origins, pre-Babylonian, Babylonian, European Celtic, Greek and Roman sources. There is even Native American Influence at the time of our writing of the Constitution.

[Cow Poke]

I argue that the "historical context" of our American Law has a broader source of influences then the 'Ten Commandments.' The influence is older and broader including Vedic origins, pre-Babylonian, Babylonian, European Celtic, Greek and Roman sources. There is even Native American Influence at the time of our writing of the Constitution.

LittleJoe had a much better answer.