Removing the Ten Commandments

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is a news item about a court in Oklahoma asking the state to remove the Ten Commandments inscribed on a monument at the capitol.

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

*******************************************************************************

After the Supreme Court's week of high-profile decisions, Oklahoma's high court made a stir of its own in a ruling that had a group of self-proclaimed Satanists and an ordained Baptist minister celebrating.

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.

The decision came after years of controversy and legal battles. The monument's supporters include prominent figures in the state, including Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin and members of the state's legislature.

********************************************************************************

What do you think?

Sriram

[Leonard James]

Since the only other alternative would have been to allow similar monuments to all other religions, it seems the most sensible decision.

[Shaker]

As far as I understand it this (the presence of such an item, I mean) is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause, so according to the terms of the Constitution it has to go.

[Nearly Sane]

The legal decision is correct. Are there more important things  that could be done than fighting this case, undoubtedly yes, for both sides. Arguably there is a principle that needs to be stood up for here that will have a significant role in ensuring freedom of and from religion but I have never been able to get that excited by it, given that the entwining of religion, capitalism and the state is currently written on the money in the US.

[Shaker]

Curious that such things keep happening in a de jure secular state such as the USA ...

[Harrowby Hall]

Curious that such things keep happening in a de jure secular state such as the USA ...

... whose banknotes state "In God we trust" ...

(as NS has already pointed out  )

[Shaker]

Indeed 

[Leonard James]

The Yanks are a strange mixture of sense and nonsense ... although in truth, we still have a lot of nonsensical people here!

[Sassy]

Hi everyone,

Here is a news item about a court in Oklahoma asking the state to remove the Ten Commandments inscribed on a monument at the capitol.

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

*******************************************************************************

After the Supreme Court's week of high-profile decisions, Oklahoma's high court made a stir of its own in a ruling that had a group of self-proclaimed Satanists and an ordained Baptist minister celebrating.

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.

The decision came after years of controversy and legal battles. The monument's supporters include prominent figures in the state, including Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin and members of the state's legislature.

********************************************************************************

What do you think?

Sriram

It reminds me of an Ostrich burying it's head in the sand thinking the enemy cannot see him because he can no longer see his enemy.

Why does God and the laws bother men so much that a 6ft granite stone with the 10 commandments written on them need to be removed?

If, they believe God does not exist then why the bothersome need to remove anything relating to God?

The falling away and the end does not change. God is still their and the earth and man will come to the final judgement still.

But sometimes I wonder if man really understands how if a Kingdom divides and turns on itself it will fall.

Does Satan really believe he can change the final outcome?
Does man believe he can live without God?
Or is the truth the fact that Satan knows he cannot change the final outcome but will lead as many with him as he can?

[Nearly Sane]

Surely the point is why would Christians need a six foot Ten Commandments when it is breaking the law?

[Shaker]

Why does God and the laws bother men so much that a 6ft granite stone with the 10 commandments written on them need to be removed?

Because it breaks the law by violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

If, they believe God does not exist then why the bothersome need to remove anything relating to God?

See previous answer.

Or is the truth the fact that Satan knows he cannot change the final outcome but will lead as many with him as he can?

That's not a fact but a belief.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why does God and the laws bother men so much that a 6ft granite stone with the 10 commandments written on them need to be removed?

As others have pointed out the issue here is the US constitution.

While it may seem pointless to you if it is unconstitutional there is a need to ensure that the constitution is enforced. If one unconstitutional act is simply ignored the state others acting in an unconstitutional manner may cry 'double standards' if their breach is punished.

And the US and its people are very hot on their constitution, so it isn't unexpected that breaches of the constitution are dealt with whether or not you think the issue is trivial.

[Hope]

As far as I understand it this (the presence of such an item, I mean) is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause, so according to the terms of the Constitution it has to go.

I thought that the Establishment Clause only referred to Christianity; surely the 10 Commandments are primarily something relating to Judaism.  Can see the Jewish element of the US population having a hissy fit   

[Hope]

Surely the point is why would Christians need a six foot Ten Commandments when it is breaking the law?

Who says it's the Christians who need a six foot 10 Commandments?

[Shaker]

I thought that the Establishment Clause only referred to Christianity

No. All religions; any religion; every religion; religion generally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

[Hope]

The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another; which tends to allow for a greater harmony amongst all of the many denominations in the United States.[^{citation needed}] While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, still it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause)

I like the comment preceding the 'citation needed' comment - "The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another; which tends to allow for a greater harmony amongst all of the many denominations in the United States".  As those who have any knowledge of language will be aware, the term 'denomonations' in this context refers to groupings within a given religion.  When the Clause was written in the 18th century, I suspect that Christianity and its denominational groupings was what was referred to.  If this is the purpose of the constitution, has there actually been a legal challenge to the clause in order to widen that purpose?

At the same time, does having a 6-foot column inscribed with the 10 Commandments in a location such as this actually establish any particular religion?

[Shaker]

When the Clause was written in the 18th century, I suspect that Christianity and its denominational groupings was what was referred to.

The framers of the Constitution didn't write 'Christianity'; they wrote 'religion,' of which Christianity is but one of many.

At the same time, does having a 6-foot column inscribed with the 10 Commandments in a location such as this actually establish any particular religion?

Not one but two, I should think - I guess that constitutional lawyers would argue that it privileges Judaism and Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Satanism ... in fact every religion which is not Judaism or Christianity.

[Hope]

Not one but two, I should think - I guess that constitutional lawyers would argue that it privileges Judaism and Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Satanism ... in fact every religion which is not Judaism or Christianity.

So, in terms of the Establishment Clause, the column isn't privileging one religion over another - which, as I understand it - is the pertinent point.

Please note that I'm not overly bothered either way, but from I understand, the US Constitution is often its own worst enemy, because it's phrasing is often so specific.

[Shaker]

Not one but two, I should think - I guess that constitutional lawyers would argue that it privileges Judaism and Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Satanism ... in fact every religion which is not Judaism or Christianity.

So, in terms of the Establishment Clause, the column isn't privileging one religion over another - which, as I understand it - is the pertinent point.

No. The pertinent point is that all religions are deemed to occupy the same level playing field where none of them in any number or combination can be privileged above the rest of them. That's secularism in a nutshell.

[Hope]

No. The pertinent point is that all religions are deemed to occupy the same level playing field where none of them in any number or combination can be privileged above the rest of them. That's secularism in a nutshell.

So, having such a display doesn't break the law; its the not having other religions' equivalent alongside that does this?

[Shaker]

No. The pertinent point is that all religions are deemed to occupy the same level playing field where none of them in any number or combination can be privileged above the rest of them. That's secularism in a nutshell.

So, having such a display doesn't break the law; its the not having other religions' equivalent alongside that does this?

I suppose a constitutional lawyer could argue along such lines - it's either all religions without exception or none, and it's easier and simpler if it's none.

[Hope]

... and it's easier and simpler if it's none.

So, you're suggesting that absolutely nothing should be displayed anywhere in any government building, so that no belief system is represented?

[Shaker]

... and it's easier and simpler if it's none.

So, you're suggesting that absolutely nothing should be displayed anywhere in any government building, so that no belief system is represented?

I don't know what the colonials say but that seems to be the general opinion. The Establishment and Free Exercise clauses allow for, say, Muslims and Satanists to put up monuments of their own and predictably that has a very great many septics squawking and whining (because Christianity alone is the one right and true religion, obviously), so none rather than all seems to be the order of the day.

[Harrowby Hall]

... and it's easier and simpler if it's none.

So, you're suggesting that absolutely nothing should be displayed anywhere in any government building, so that no belief system is represented?

What a wonderful, progressive idea. Thank you, Hope, for suggesting it.

[Hope]

What a wonderful, progressive idea. Thank you, Hope, for suggesting it.

It woud be good, wouldn't it, HH.  No notices on the walls, no instructions, no nothing.  Remember too, that its not only written material - it's spoken/heard as well.