Oklahoma Attorney General Can’t Decide if Ten Commandments Monument is Religious or Not

[beam me up scottie]

Oklahoma Attorney General Can’t Decide if Ten Commandments Monument is Religious or Not

Back in June, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the State Capitol was unconstitutional:



The Governor ordered the monument to stay put while the state appealed the decision any way it could. That led Attorney General Scott Pruitt to file a request for a rehearing of the case.

His argument? The monument wasn’t religious. It was a part of the nation’s legal history! Furthermore, other supposedly-religious monuments/buildings were deemed legal because of their secular nature.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling was wrong because it ignored the profound historical impact of the Ten Commandments, and contradicted previous decisions of the court. The court previously upheld as constitutional a 50-foot tall lighted cross on public property and blessed the construction of a chapel at a state-owned orphanage. Now, the court is bucking its own precedent and misconstruing a section of the state Constitution that permitted those displays to order the removal of the privately funded Ten Commandments display.

He’s now arguing that taking down the monument creates “hostility toward religion.”
In other words, the monument is so religious that taking it down would be an affront to Christians:

In defending the Ten Commandments display, my office argued the monument was lawfully permitted on Capitol grounds because of the historical significance of the text on the development of Western legal code. 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.’ That declaration prohibits manifestations of faith from the public square in such a way as to create hostility toward religion in violation of the U.S. Constitution

.

This is just ridiculous. As everyone has been saying for a long time, the Ten Commandments monument can stay put… as long as other religious displays, like the Satanic Temple’s Baphomet monument, get to go up as well. But Pruitt doesn’t consider that an option.

In the meantime, he can’t decide if the monument is religious or not. And he doesn’t seem to give a damn about maintaining logical consistency.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/09/04/oklahoma-attorney-general-cant-decide-if-ten-commandments-monument-is-religious-or-not

[PoliticAverse]

1. That's ok, a court will decide for him. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

2. "I AM the LORD thy God!!!"

Nope, nothing religious about that at all.

[Lordquinton]

3. I'm not quite following you here...

Seems rather vague.

[onager]

4. Has a Certain DU Group filed an amicus curiae brief yet?

Woman Kills Babies Because God Told Her To
"Nope. Nothing to do with religion. Just one lone nut...er, differently mentalized person."

Planned Parenthood Bombed By Xian Fundamentalists
"Nope. Nothing to do with religion. Simply a political disagreement."

Vatican Works Against Gay Rights Around The World
"Nope. Nothing to do with religion. Sincerely held personal beliefs about human sexuality."

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris Debate Religion
"WAAAH! Vicious attack on innocent religious believers!"

I also noticed this from the OKey-Dokey Attorney General: "In defending the Ten Commandments display, my office argued the monument was lawfully permitted on Capitol grounds because of the historical significance of the text on the development of Western legal code."

Huh? One T. Jefferson studied that question extensively back in the 18th century, and concluded that the Ten Commandments had NO effect on the "Western legal code" as adopted in the USA. IIRC, Jefferson concluded that U.S. law evolved from British common law, which existed when Britain was still pagan and nobody there had ever heard of a Xian.

[cleanhippie]

6. Fundies constantly use that as their "secular" line of reasoning.

I think it comes from the Evangelical revisionist camp, David Barton being a leader, I think?

It's becoming more and more common to hear the wing-nuts say things just like "because of the historical significance of the text on the development of Western legal code" every time this topic comes up. Facts be damned.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Nailed it!

History, facts, logic, so much fail...

[AlbertCat]

5. And he doesn’t seem to give a damn about maintaining logical consistency.

Well.... that proves it IS religious. No?

[mountain grammy]

7. Exactly!

[beam me up scottie]

12. Yep.

The logic is weak in this one.

[kdmorris]

8. You can tell it's not religous

because those first words are in BIG letters... I AM THE LORD THY GOD.

Religion <> God, of course....

[beam me up scottie]

13. It was the flag and eagle that confused me.

I wonder if they were on the original tablets too?

[kdmorris]

16. Of course

Along with the all seeing eye!

[beam me up scottie]

17. It's true!!1!

[Curmudgeoness]

9. He knows damned well it is religious.

He just doesn't see a problem with that, and only argues that it is historical because he has to.

Ask any Christian, even the most devout, if the Ten Commandments have anything to do with religion.

[beam me up scottie]

14. You can't make this stuff up.

They're going to put the Onion out of business if they keep this up.

[marym625]

10. Oy vey!

This is so out there it's comedy gold.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Ikr?

[progressoid]

18. Maybe he's thinking of these:

[beam me up scottie]

19. Lol! Those are good! I also like Louis C.K's observation: