Interesting development.



The Ten Commandments monument must be removed from the grounds of the state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a 7-2 opinion the Supreme Court found the placement of the monument on the grounds of the state Capitol violate Article 2, Section 5, of the Oklahoma Constitution which prohibits the use of public money or property to directly or indirectly benefit a “church denomination or system of religion.”

Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday | News OK (http://newsok.com/ten-commandments-monument-must-be-removed-from-grounds-of-state-capitol/article/5430792)

Ooops This is also in the politics section so please delete

I have no problem with the 10 commandments but I don't think they are appropriately placed. put the monument on private property or a church and focus more on living by them rather than displaying them.

Move the statue over to the OCPA building across the street. Problem solved.

Monument to "The Ten Commandments" removed by Judicial Fiat?
A couple of Xerox Machines, copies of The Ten Commandments, plus a truckload of Scotch Tape could provide a temporary replacement.
And, perhaps help to shore-up the crumbling Capitol Building.
Without being charged with littering.
That, or put a little rainbow over it with an endlessly playing song by Judy Garland.

"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." Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

I'm not sure how that isn't clear enough to understand that putting a religious system's commandments on public property isn't allowed under the law. Then, I remember the crazies like Kevin Calvey (the guy who threatened to self immolate) and Sally Kern (gays are a bigger threat than Islamic terrorists), who are calling for the justices to be impeached for doing their job, truly aren't intelligent people.

"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." Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

I'm not sure how that isn't clear enough to understand that putting a religious system's commandments on public property isn't allowed under the law. Then, I remember the crazies like Kevin Calvey (the guy who threatened to self immolate) and Sally Kern (gays are a bigger threat than Islamic terrorists), who are calling for the justices to be impeached for doing their job, truly aren't intelligent people.

So . . . simply out of curiosity, what is your personal stance, on the personal ethics, expressed by "The Ten Commandments" and, in the interests of diversity, how does it (your personal stance) compare to . . . say . . . for example . . . Hammurabi's Code?

So . . . simply out of curiosity, what is your personal stance, on the personal ethics, expressed by "The Ten Commandments" and, in the interests of diversity, how does it (your personal stance) compare to . . . say . . . for example . . . Hammurabi's Code?

Not trying to answer for king but what does a persons 'personal stance' have to do with following the State Constitution and not having it on state property? If you wanted his personal opinion opinion on Kerns and Calvey I think he made that clear.

I'll preface this by saying I'm a Christian, but I fully support the removal of the monument. The political grounds of the government should be free of religious symbols. And if you're going to allow one, then you need to be open to all of them...ie the Satanic monument. That can start a whole competition of who has the biggest/best monument and clutter up the grounds too. There just isn't a place for them at the capital.

That being said, we all have personal convictions regarding our beliefs. We carry those around with us all day and having/not having a monument outside the building doesn't change whether or not a legislator votes with/without those views. There's often a Christian hypocrisy in that Christians (mind you I am one so don't get your feathers all in a ruffle here) want what fits into our own idea of how things should be without consideration of other views. That's part of what makes putting religion into politics so dangerous. We've got plenty examples in history and current day that show why it's such a bad idea and how it inevitably leads to persecution of a group of people.

Can I just say that the 10 Commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish. Whether or not you want to believe they were given by God to Moses, or if Moses just made them up, that is up to you, but they were the laws Jews lived under for several thousand years. Now I could see where people of different religious faiths might argue with each other, but why would someone who doesn't believe in God be at all concerned? To that latter group, what is the difference to them between a prayer service and a rain dance?

Can I just say that the 10 Commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish. Whether or not you want to believe they were given by God to Moses, or if Moses just made them up, that is up to you, but they were the laws Jews lived under for several thousand years. Now I could see where people of different religious faiths might argue with each other, but why would someone who doesn't believe in God be at all concerned? To that latter group, what is the difference to them between a prayer service and a rain dance?

Shouldn't it concern everybody if it violates the State Constitution, even if you don't care about what it is?

Can I just say that the 10 Commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish. Whether or not you want to believe they were given by God to Moses, or if Moses just made them up, that is up to you, but they were the laws Jews lived under for several thousand years. Now I could see where people of different religious faiths might argue with each other, but why would someone who doesn't believe in God be at all concerned? To that latter group, what is the difference to them between a prayer service and a rain dance?

Exactly as Kelroy said. It concerns me because it's a violation of the state constitution. I'm not offended by any religious monument, in and of itself, personally. I am offended, however, when the placement of those monuments and the expressed intent of their placement violates our laws. Violations of the constitution should concern everyone regardless of religious affiliation.

I love how the state constitution is inviolate when it's someone folks agree with.

Sometimes it just means what it says. This isn't a case of poor draftsmanship leading to a technical wrong answer as occurred in the recent Affordable Care Act case, but rather very express language being applied exactly as it was intended to. I don't understand the need of some people to defend something which is clearly illegal because of some odd fantasy that they are somehow under attack.

Can I just say that the 10 Commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish. Whether or not you want to believe they were given by God to Moses, or if Moses just made them up, that is up to you, but they were the laws Jews lived under for several thousand years. Now I could see where people of different religious faiths might argue with each other, but why would someone who doesn't believe in God be at all concerned? To that latter group, what is the difference to them between a prayer service and a rain dance?

Oh Kerry, this entirely too obvious for you to have even asked the question. I am terribly offended and scared by this monument not because of what it is or says, but by those who intentionally subverted the state constitution by hook and crook with the express intent of making an in your face statement that the laws of Oklahoma should be precisely aligned with their religious beliefs. These ignorant bullies are willing to cast aside a huge portion of the logic and reason in the founding of the United States for the ability to legislate that I act and believe in accordance with their religious beliefs rather than protecting the very mechanisms that allow them to hold and practice their beliefs largely unmolested. It scares and angers the living f&$k out of me.

There's one other thing that bothers me that I haven't seen anyone mention yet. It offends me as a Christian more than anything else people have said.

I saw a picture of the monument itself. It's got a bald eagle, an American flag, and that eyeball pyramid thing on it. It really bothers me to try and "patriot-up" the Ten Commandments. It's revisionist history and it's revisionist religion. I know most people here won't be bothered by it, but it really bothered me.

There's one other thing that bothers me that I haven't seen anyone mention yet. It offends me as a Christian more than anything else people have said.

I saw a picture of the monument itself. It's got a bald eagle, an American flag, and that eyeball pyramid thing on it. It really bothers me to try and "patriot-up" the Ten Commandments. It's revisionist history and it's revisionist religion. I know most people here won't be bothered by it, but it really bothered me.

wait... so you're saying that the ten commandments wasn't etched by lightning drawn out of the sky by the key on ben franklin's kite, flown down from the green mountains in the clutches of a bald eagle, delivered into the hands of our prophet and savior george washington?

blasphemy. -M

There's one other thing that bothers me that I haven't seen anyone mention yet. It offends me as a Christian more than anything else people have said.

I saw a picture of the monument itself. It's got a bald eagle, an American flag, and that eyeball pyramid thing on it. It really bothers me to try and "patriot-up" the Ten Commandments. It's revisionist history and it's revisionist religion. I know most people here won't be bothered by it, but it really bothered me.

Exactly. The chest thumping Christian legislators that thought it was necessary to erect this monument only cheapened the religious significance of the 10 commandments when they say its only historical. For them to claim its only historic law and not religious would be pretty offensive to all Christians, I would imagine.

So would anyone be equally as upset if it was Hammurabi's code on display? It was religious - just not Jewish or Christian. Just because something appears in the Bible doesn't make it a religious symbol. What about Egyptian artifacts on display all over the place? Anything to do with Pharos are by definition religious - just not Jewish or Christian.

So would anyone be equally as upset if it was Hammurabi's code on display? It was religious - just not Jewish or Christian. Just because something appears in the Bible doesn't make it a religious symbol. What about Egyptian artifacts on display all over the place? Anything to do with Pharos are by definition religious - just not Jewish or Christian.

I think the issue of whether or not its offensive depends on the intent of the monument. Egyptian monuments are just that - historical monuments and are not intended to promote a religious or political agenda in the current day. Even some of the Judeo-Christian monuments in this country fall into that category. The Ten Commandments monument in Oklahoma isn't historical like the monuments in some other states. It was put up recently with the sole intention of getting under the skin of secular progressives. Also, as hoyasooner stated, having the bald eagle and the American flag on the monument only further proves the fact that its true intent is to promote the Republican dream of a Christian America. Despite the fact it is unconstitutional, I personally think this specific monument was in poor taste.

So would anyone be equally as upset if it was Hammurabi's code on display? It was religious - just not Jewish or Christian. Just because something appears in the Bible doesn't make it a religious symbol. What about Egyptian artifacts on display all over the place? Anything to do with Pharos are by definition religious - just not Jewish or Christian.

It depends, of course, on why it is being displayed. The AICCM is going to have items of some religious significance there, if it ever gets completed. If a state-run museum ever managed to get some historical Christian artifact, it would be fine to create an exhibit around it. I am pretty sure OU has a Gutenburg Bible in its library -- I'd bet nobody just gave that to them. However it's pretty clear that the state has religious-neutral reasons for getting and displaying these items. That's clearly not the case here.

So would anyone be equally as upset if it was Hammurabi's code on display? It was religious - just not Jewish or Christian. Just because something appears in the Bible doesn't make it a religious symbol. What about Egyptian artifacts on display all over the place? Anything to do with Pharos are by definition religious - just not Jewish or Christian.

hammurabi, moses (holding the commandments), solomon, and muhammad among others are carved into the us supreme court building commemorating them as lawgivers. in the historical context of delivering codified law, i don't think any of those religious figures are inappropriate on government grounds. if somebody wanted to erect a monument to hammurabi as a means of honoring or promoting babylonian religion, i'd have the same reservations with it on the same grounds that i have with the oklahoma capitol's ten commandments display. -M

In this case, I think the fact that the ONLY people who are outraged about this are Christians tells you exactly what this monument was--a monument to advance a Christianist agenda and to promote Christianity. There are no Jews or Muslims or lawyers who think this is a monument about law who are similarly decrying the fact that they "no longer have rights anymore" (to quote one slightly right of center relative) and that we need to start impeaching justices and repealing constitutional articles.

Oh Kerry, this entirely too obvious for you to have even asked the question. I am terribly offended and scared by this monument not because of what it is or says, but by those who intentionally subverted the state constitution by hook and crook with the express intent of making an in your face statement that the laws of Oklahoma should be precisely aligned with their religious beliefs. These ignorant bullies are willing to cast aside a huge portion of the logic and reason in the founding of the United States for the ability to legislate that I act and believe in accordance with their religious beliefs rather than protecting the very mechanisms that allow them to hold and practice their beliefs largely unmolested. It scares and angers the living f&$k out of me.

I agree with this whole heartedly and add that it is even more offensive that it was an elected official who paid for it and supports it. The oath of office starts with:

I, __________________________________________________ ________________________, 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,

In this case, I think the fact that the ONLY people who are outraged about this are Christians tells you exactly what this monument was--a monument to advance a Christianist agenda and to promote Christianity. There are no Jews or Muslims or lawyers who think this is a monument about law who are similarly decrying the fact that they "no longer have rights anymore" (to quote one slightly right of center relative) and that we need to start impeaching justices and repealing constitutional articles.

How can non-Christian laws promote Christianity? I will agree with bchris02 on this one item - the display was poorly done and out of place, both in location and style - and should have been rejected on those merits alone.

How can non-Christian laws promote Christianity?

Go find me someone who is offended by the Court's ruling who truly believes that it was not an attack on their Christian faith.

That person does not exist.

And if they claim otherwise, refer them to Commandment no. 9.

How can non-Christian laws promote Christianity? I will agree with bchris02 on this one item - the display was poorly done and out of place, both in location and style - and should have been rejected on those merits alone.

Obviously a lot of other Christians don't feel the same way about them being non-Christian laws. Jesus coming around didn't make the ten commandments completely irrelevant to Christianity.

Obviously a lot of other Christians don't feel the same way about them being non-Christian laws. Jesus coming around didn't make the ten commandments completely irrelevant to Christianity.

Yes it did. Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses. Also, they never applied to Christians - period.

Yes it did. Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses. Also, they never applied to Christians - period.

Then they sure do spend a lot of time talking about and whining about things that are irrelevant.

Shouldn't it concern everybody if it violates the State Constitution, even if you don't care about what it is?

Yes, but many Christians see the need to pick and choose what passages to follow in the Bible, so I'm not surprised they want to treat the Constitution in the same way.

Then they sure do spend a lot of time talking about and whining about things that are irrelevant.

Well, no arguement there. I don't understand why "Christians" want it posted either. If they are using the word of God as a weapon of division that is an unforgivable sin. God knows their motivation and he will sort it out in due time.

Yes, but many Christians see the need to pick and choose what passages to follow in the Bible, so I'm not surprised they want to treat the Constitution in the same way.

Thats called "human nature." Picking and choosing is something practiced by virtually every human on the planet. There are dozens of Christian denominations because of interpretations of the bible. Its always been that way and, for the most part, they respect the others differences. Perhaps the real issue is tolerance of those with religious viewpoints by those who dont and vice versa. Dealing with Christianity is a piece of cake. Remember there are religious faiths out there where complete INtolerance of interpretation or lack of faith is mainstream practice.

Well, no argument there. I don't understand why "Christians" want it posted either. If they are using the word of God as a weapon of division that is an unforgivable sin. God knows their motivation and he will sort it out in due time.

For some reason some of them feel the state must acknowledge the presence of God. The state displaying the Ten Commandments is a great way to do it, they feel. I think "In God We Trust" printed on money should be enough for them.

To quote Judge Roy Moore when he unveiled his 10 Commandments monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building in 2001, "Today a cry has gone out across our land for the acknowledgment of that God upon whom this nation and our laws were founded....May this day mark the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land."

Moore also felt his monument served to remind the Appellate Courts and judges of the Circuit and District Court of Alabama and members of the bar who appear before them, as well as the people of Alabama who visit the Alabama Judicial Building, of the truth stated in the Preamble to the Alabama Constitution that in order to establish justice we must invoke "the favor and guidance of almighty God". What's quoted is found in the preamble to the Alabama Constitution. Moore had no concern that the monument made some people of different religious beliefs feel uncomfortable. Under federal court order, the monument was removed from public view in 2003 and out of the building in 2004.

This isn't about displaying the 10 Commandments. It's a struggle of wills between people who want to prove this is still a Christian nation by placing these monuments and telling everyone else there's not a damned thing you can do about it vs. the people who will do something about it. Maybe the most remarkable part of this issue is the fact that the Christian side is so willing to just flat out lie about the 10 Commandments being the basis for law or some non-religious historical document.

Many of them now truly believe that.

Anti intellectualism has reached a fevered pitch in the United States and it presents a crisis for the Christian faith. So many people think that to be Christian, you have to be anti-science and anti-reason. No, that's just your asshole pastor who happens to be a moron who needs you to be more of a moron to get your money.

For some reason some of them feel the state must acknowledge the presence of God. The state displaying the Ten Commandments is a great way to do it, they feel. I think "In God We Trust" printed on money should be enough for them.

To quote Judge Roy Moore when he unveiled his 10 Commandments monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building in 2001, "Today a cry has gone out across our land for the acknowledgment of that God upon whom this nation and our laws were founded....May this day mark the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land."


"Replacement theology" is extremely common in evangelical/fundamentalist circles, especially here in the Bible belt. Basically the line of thinking is that America is God's chosen nation in this age and all of the blessings and curses promised to the theocracy of ancient Israel apply to America today.

In the Old Testament, Israel was set up to be a complete theocracy based on the law of Moses contained in the first five books of the Bible. Whenever the nation of Israel had a king that enforced the laws handed down to Moses and acknowledge God in all aspects of government as well as banned worship of false gods and put "sexual deviants" to death, God blessed the nation. Whenever there was an "evil" king who allowed religious pluralism, statues of other gods besides Yahweh, and "sexual immorality", God would punish the nation. Eventually, the nation had drifted so far from strict enforcement of Mosaic law that God destroyed Jerusalem and allowed the people to be taken into Babylonian captivity.

Knowing this basic history is important to understand the worldview of the Christian Right today. If America is modern Israel, then removing the Ten Commandments is an affront to God and is inviting his wrath and same-sex marriage is an even bigger deal. So when you ask why the Christian Right cannot adhere to separation of church and state, this is why. In their mind there is no such concept and no room for compromise.

I'll grant you that there are some seriously misguided people who call themselves Christians. The USA is not God's chosen nation for two reasons 1) The USA is not a nation in the biblical sense and 2) There is only one Judgment Day - and it hasn't happened yet. So these people who say God is punishing us for reason X are sadly spreading a false doctrine. However, I do believe God has established the pattern for the sustainability of society and when that pattern isn't followed collapse is an inevitability. Look around the country today - is there anyone who seriously believes we can keep it together for 5 more years? I don't. Midtowner once remarked that James Buchanan was the worst President in US history because the seeds of the Civil War were sewn on his watch. If Midtowner actually believes that, his opinion of Obama must be in the toilet.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams

It is trully a silly notion to think Obama has sewn the seeds of rebellion. 1) conservatives are too chicken to do it, the world doesn't work like that and 2) if you look at what has happened on Obama's watch, comparing him to Buchanan is some ridicuous hyperbole.

It is trully a silly notion to think Obama has sewn the seeds of rebellion. 1) conservatives are too chicken to do it, the world doesn't work like that and 2) if you look at what has happened on Obama's watch, comparing him to Buchanan is some ridicuous hyperbole.

I thought you would wuss out.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/im-christian-minister-and-heres-why-i-opposed-oklahomas-official-ten-commandments

Why are all these people just injecting the ACLU into everything...

.... oh wait...

Nullification is alive and well (apparently at all levels of government). Bring on 2020 and a return of the City-State.

What happens when the Supreme Court is no longer supreme?

Nullification is alive and well (apparently at all levels of government). Bring on 2020 and a return of the City-State.

What happens when the Supreme Court is no longer supreme?

Why would SCOTUS no longer be SCOTUS? Triggering event? Why do you think this will happen? When do you think this will happen?

I was talking about the Oklahoma Supreme Court. As for Nullification in general, look at legalized pot and sanctuary cities. More and more people are caring less and less about government powers and are just ignoring them.

Team Obama should have prosecuted pot dealers in Colorado if for no other reason than to protect federal sovereignty. It okay though, Midtowner says rebellion isn't happening.

Much like with gay marriage (which I support...and remember I am a Christian...shock), it really pisses me off when politicians/judges decide they think they know better and try to do whatever they want regardless of what the supreme court says. SCOTUS says marriage is legal, so the time for debate is over. It's time now to get the states in line with FEDERAL law and stop discriminating (which is what it was). SCOK says the monument needs to go, yet FAILIN' (if you never saw the youtube video of that guy...oh man, it's hilarious) wants to try and counter them. It's not a new battle, but the supreme court was set up to be a deciding voice that was (at least in theory) free from political pressures...ie they don't have to vote a certain way so they retain their seat. We may not always like their decisions, but at some point you have to give up when the SCOTUS says something....the discussion is over.

And if OK finds a way to keep the monument on the capital grounds, then we should fully expect to see other religious institutions (such as satanic folk) working to get theirs in there too. We'll see the battle of who's monument is bigger/better, and if the state tries to start regulating what gets in....whoa Nellie, we're going to see a much bigger and much more public legal battle. The state folks would be wise to put their brains back on their heads and get the damned thing out of there.

Right now it's no big deal--it's part of the process. Fallin hasn't won some glorious victory by refusing to take the monument down. The Supreme Court has stayed their ruling pending the rehearing they granted when the AG asked for one. I don't think there is any new information to present to the Court except perhaps the AG feels that the Court may be persuaded by all of the calls for their impeachment and removal, which I guarantee you is not part of the equation.

So it's a mere delay of the inevitable and then let the gnashing of teeth resume at full volume.

Part of me is hoping she wins just so other monuments start popping up.

http://skepticsonthe.net/wp-content/uploads/churchoftheflyingspaghettimonster.png

But I don't know of any Supreme Court decision, which resulted in a government owned park dedicated to religious monuments.

Right now it's no big deal--it's part of the process. Fallin hasn't won some glorious victory by refusing to take the monument down. The Supreme Court has stayed their ruling pending the rehearing they granted when the AG asked for one. I don't think there is any new information to present to the Court except perhaps the AG feels that the Court may be persuaded by all of the calls for their impeachment and removal, which I guarantee you is not part of the equation.

So it's a mere delay of the inevitable and then let the gnashing of teeth resume at full volume.
Right. In the Tulsa World, the ACLU said all that Pruitt is doing in his appeal is recycling old arguments.

Had the Court already denied rehearing and issued a mandate, a refusal to remove the monument would be in defiance of the court's ruling.
Until the mandate comes down, any talk of defiance is simply posturing or fundraising.

This isn't about displaying the 10 Commandments. It's a struggle of wills between people who want to prove this is still a Christian nation by placing these monuments and telling everyone else there's not a damned thing you can do about it vs. the people who will do something about it. Maybe the most remarkable part of this issue is the fact that the Christian side is so willing to just flat out lie about the 10 Commandments being the basis for law or some non-religious historical document.

Many of them now truly believe that.

Anti intellectualism has reached a fevered pitch in the United States and it presents a crisis for the Christian faith. So many people think that to be Christian, you have to be anti-science and anti-reason. No, that's just your asshole pastor who happens to be a moron who needs you to be more of a moron to get your money.

Heard this on NPR and thought it interesting.

Evangelical Pastors Gather To Learn Another Calling: Politics : NPR (http://www.npr.org/2015/07/10/421684410/evangelical-pastors-gather-to-learn-another-calling-politics)

Right now it's no big deal--it's part of the process. Fallin hasn't won some glorious victory by refusing to take the monument down. The Supreme Court has stayed their ruling pending the rehearing they granted when the AG asked for one. I don't think there is any new information to present to the Court except perhaps the AG feels that the Court may be persuaded by all of the calls for their impeachment and removal, which I guarantee you is not part of the equation.

So it's a mere delay of the inevitable and then let the gnashing of teeth resume at full volume.

I think this Ten Commandments case will eventually have to be settled in federal court, since supporters think the U. S. Constitution and the U. S. Supreme Court is on their side from the way Pleasant Grove City v. Summum turned out in 2009. Interesting how it was decided that government could exercise it's own freedom of speech by not having to allow in monuments carrying a message it did not agree with. So if applicable to Oklahoma, no one need worry about a Satanist statue posed on State Capitol property, if the Ten Commandments monument is allowed to stay. From taking it to federal court, though, supporters will have to hope they won't meet with the same fate that Judge Roy Moore had with his Ten Commandments monument.

I think this Ten Commandments case will eventually have to be settled in federal court, since supporters think the U. S. Constitution and the U. S. Supreme Court is on their side from the way Pleasant Grove City v. Summum turned out in 2009. Interesting how it was decided that government could exercise it's own freedom of speech by not having to allow in monuments carrying a message it did not agree with. So if applicable to Oklahoma, no one need worry about a Satanist statue posed on State Capitol property, if the Ten Commandments monument is allowed to stay. From taking it to federal court, though, supporters will have to hope they won't meet with the same fate that Judge Roy Moore had with his Ten Commandments monument.
Not a federal issue. The ruling was based on interpretation of the Oklahoma constitution and prohibitions contained therein.

Not a federal issue. The ruling was based on interpretation of the Oklahoma constitution and prohibitions contained therein.

But I already know that full well. The point is opponents of the Ten Commandments monument may eventually have to resort to making a federal case out of it, most likely after Oklahoma voters have made changes in the Oklahoma Constitution to allow the monument.

While I'm no lawyer, It does kinda look like Pleasant Grove City v. Summum decision could allow a privately funded Ten Commandments monument on any government property, if the government body wants to exercise its freedom of speech that way. Perhaps it could further work by someone wanting to present as a gift to a public school district a bunch of plaques engraved with the Ten Commandments, enough to put one on display in every classroom. All that is required is for the school board to approve of it and it's done.

STEVE FAIR: Purpose of the Ten Commandments - Stillwater News Press: Opinion (http://www.stwnewspress.com/opinion/steve-fair-purpose-of-the-ten-commandments/article_b95283a4-2c3b-11e5-b238-8b3c696d5701.html)

STEVE FAIR: Purpose of the Ten Commandments - Stillwater News Press: Opinion (http://www.stwnewspress.com/opinion/steve-fair-purpose-of-the-ten-commandments/article_b95283a4-2c3b-11e5-b238-8b3c696d5701.html)

I love it.. a small town editorial board knows more Constitutional law than the United States Supreme Court.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/e2/e268a9a9f656ac12c395f048be410d629b13c16cc1ff741e43 3738f2966915b9.jpg

It wasn't written by the small town editorial board.

It wasn't written by the small town editorial board.

So the last line says "Steve Fair is National Committeeman for the Oklahoma Republican Party."

Given the stance the Oklahoma Republican Party has been taking on all sorts of things these days, it seems like it's right in line. It's the tired argument of the majority woeing themselves about the attacks on their "rights". Face it folks, sometimes the majority is NOT right. Some times groups like SCOTUS or the SCOTSO (that's Oklahoma's Supreme Court for he acronym challenged) have to step in to ensure that the minority isn't shoved to the side. There's a good editorial article HERE (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godisnotarepublican/2015/07/please-stop-with-the-christian-persecution-complex-youre-embarrassing-the-faith/) that expresses a lot of what I feel these days when I hear the republican party (ESPECIALLY in Oklahoma) complain. Most times when I hear Boehner complain, I just wanna facepalm myself. It seems that if you're Republican these days, you have to disagree with any progress made in rights to individuals and have to skew it to be an attack on yourself.

Not before you jump on me, what we can all wait for is to see if the Democratic party plays the same game when the sides are switched. The presidential election will be a major deciding point. If the R party wins, then you'll see congress turn blue. It's a pattern repeated over and over in history. So it's TBD if the Democratic Party will be considered as obstructionist as the Republicans have been....but it would be pretty hard to match their level of stubbornness.

I love it.. a small town editorial board knows more Constitutional law than the United States Supreme Court.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/e2/e268a9a9f656ac12c395f048be410d629b13c16cc1ff741e43 3738f2966915b9.jpg

So the paper gives another side of the story from an OSU professor of politics: BOB DARCY: Are the Ten Commandments basis of American legal system? - Stillwater News Press: Columns (http://www.stwnewspress.com/opinion/columns/bob-darcy-are-the-ten-commandments-basis-of-american-legal/article_fe5846d8-2dc5-11e5-8772-6ba22ac63c6c.html)

It's a good thing no one else is trying to use the "It's our heritage!" ploy.

A fascinating look at the images portrayed at the U. S. Supreme Court building proving overwhelmingly why American law is not based on the Ten Commandments. Of course, though, Gov. Fallin and AG Pruitt would like you to be gullible enough to believe otherwise: https://ffrf.org/faq/freethought/item/15139-did-you-knowwise: