{"id":3441,"date":"2015-07-02T20:48:47","date_gmt":"2015-07-03T01:48:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/?p=3441"},"modified":"2015-07-02T20:48:47","modified_gmt":"2015-07-03T01:48:47","slug":"find-a-new-home-for-the-ten-commandments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/2015\/07\/02\/find-a-new-home-for-the-ten-commandments\/","title":{"rendered":"Find a new home for the Ten Commandments"},"content":{"rendered":"

Oklahoma politicians of a theocratic bent are having some trouble accepting reality, now that the State Supreme Court has ruled against<\/a> their favorite publicly owned religious display.<\/p>\n

First, they threatened to impeach<\/a> the justices who ordered the Ten Commandments taken down. Then they realized that this move was a bit too hair-on-fire crazy even by Okie standards, especially since the language of the State Constitution<\/a> is very straightforward on this issue.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

When the monument was originally donated to the State, it became the property\u00a0thereof. It has been used ever since for the benefit and support of a particular system of religion, namely, Abrahamic monotheism. This is so cut-and-dried, we should not be shocked to see the court opinion<\/a> is only a couple pages long.<\/p>\n

After realizing that it would look ridiculous to impeach seven-ninths of the State Supreme Court for\u00a0\u00a0interpreting the original language and intent of the Constitution in a plain and straightforward way,\u00a0a handful of politicians have changed tack. Now they are gunning to gut the State Constitution<\/a> instead, by repealing Article 2, Section 5, which is the\u00a0portion\u00a0quoted above. Because nothing says “conservatism” and “rule of law” quite like immediately moving to expunge anything which stands in your way, even if it has been on the books<\/a> for exactly as long as Oklahoma has existed as\u00a0a State.<\/p>\n

Even if they do manage to pull this off, though, it won’t be for over a year. In the meantime, the government officials are going to have to stand by their solemn oath<\/a> to “support, obey, and defend . . . the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma” which includes the aforementioned II-5, and that means removing the monument from the Capitol grounds.<\/p>\n

I would like to tell them where to stick it.<\/p>\n

\"edmond-cross-2\"<\/a>
Not the prettiest sculpture ever, but it sends a clear message<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Not specifically, but in general. I can remember the last time that government officials around here were faced with a similar problem. Back in 2003, Oklahoma City had a thirty-foot concrete cross on its hands, and the FFRF was politely\u00a0reminding them<\/a> that they would probably lose a lawsuit. The city council did the right thing at the time and approved removal, and later\u00a0accepted a joint proposal<\/a> from Quail Springs Church of Christ and Quail Springs Baptist Church, after reviewing several\u00a0different proposals. The cross stands proudly between those two churches to this day.<\/p>\n

So here is my idea. Since there is vastly more tax-free church-owned real estate here in Oklahoma\u00a0cities than publicly-owned land, why not move the Ten Commandments to any one of the thousands\u00a0of\u00a0places where they would be warmly welcomed and constitutionally unproblematic? I hear that the man behind the monument<\/a> has connections at\u00a0Arrow Heights Baptist Church.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Oklahoma politicians of a theocratic bent are having some trouble accepting reality, now that the State Supreme Court has ruled…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":3436,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3441","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism","category-movement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3441","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3441"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3441\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3436"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}