NytramsPlace

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday


Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 20332
Date:
Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


 

w620-9850c76f1743251f8ab93465e3abe0ed.jpg

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".

The ruling overturned a decision by Oklahoma County District Judge Thomas Prince.

In its ruling the Supreme Court cited a clause in the Oklahoma Constitution that states: "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."

http://newsok.com/article/5430792



__________________

Nytram Press    

© 2018

 



Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 1525
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


nytram wrote:

 

w620-9850c76f1743251f8ab93465e3abe0ed.jpg

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".

The ruling overturned a decision by Oklahoma County District Judge Thomas Prince.

In its ruling the Supreme Court cited a clause in the Oklahoma Constitution that states: "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."

http://newsok.com/article/5430792


 

They probably had the wrong version



__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 20332
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


Borchester wrote:


They probably had the wrong version


 



__________________

Nytram Press    

© 2018

 



Commander, Consolation Prize

Status: Online
Posts: 24268
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


nytram wrote:

 

w620-9850c76f1743251f8ab93465e3abe0ed.jpg

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".

The ruling overturned a decision by Oklahoma County District Judge Thomas Prince.

In its ruling the Supreme Court cited a clause in the Oklahoma Constitution that states: "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."

http://newsok.com/article/5430792


And while we're about it, let's demolish and rebuild the Supreme Court's building, or at least the east side of it--at no expense to the taxpayers, of course.  Yeah, right!

My view is that religious references shouldn't be incorporated into any new government structures at any level, but that we should leave alone those that have existed for a few centuries.  They are, after all, part of the nation's history (for better or for worse).  If we try to eradicate our history, whatever will we have left from which to learn?

 



__________________



Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 20332
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


KittyBiggerstaff wrote:

My view is that religious references shouldn't be incorporated into any new government structures at any level, but that we should leave alone those that have existed for a few centuries.

 


 This particular idol was erected by the family of State Rep. Mike Ritze in 2010.



__________________

Nytram Press    

© 2018

 



Commander, Consolation Prize

Status: Online
Posts: 24268
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


nytram wrote:
KittyBiggerstaff wrote:

My view is that religious references shouldn't be incorporated into any new government structures at any level, but that we should leave alone those that have existed for a few centuries.

 


 This particular idol was erected by the family of State Rep. Mike Ritze in 2010.


Well, we can't truly call it an "idol," since it doesn't incorporate any human or animal form, but yes, since it's that recent, it should be moved to private property.  How much effort would that take?  Cripes, in 1999 the Cape Hatteras lighthouse was moved 1900 feet inland, due to ocean erosion.  If a 4800-ton structure can be lifted that distance, moving this relatively small monument to privately-owned property shouldn't be much of an effort. 



__________________

Dee


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 4206
Date:
Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


nytram wrote:

 This particular idol was erected by the family of State Rep. Mike Ritze in 2010.


 It's not even that old. The original was destroyed last year when some drunk guy deliberately ran his truck into it, smashing it to bits. A new one was installed a few months later.



-- Edited by Dee on Thursday 2nd of July 2015 12:45:58 AM

__________________


Commander, Consolation Prize

Status: Online
Posts: 24268
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


So what happened to the guy who ran his truck into it?  Has he been nominated for a Darwin Award?



__________________

JW


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 3957
Date:
Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


KittyBiggerstaff wrote:
nytram wrote:
KittyBiggerstaff wrote:

My view is that religious references shouldn't be incorporated into any new government structures at any level, but that we should leave alone those that have existed for a few centuries.

 


 This particular idol was erected by the family of State Rep. Mike Ritze in 2010.


Well, we can't truly call it an "idol," since it doesn't incorporate any human or animal form, but yes, since it's that recent, it should be moved to private property.  How much effort would that take?  Cripes, in 1999 the Cape Hatteras lighthouse was moved 1900 feet inland, due to ocean erosion.  If a 4800-ton structure can be lifted that distance, moving this relatively small monument to privately-owned property shouldn't be much of an effort. 


 It says clearly that it was a gift to the people from someone who cherished both, the Bible and the people.  It's not like the state did anything but say thank you.  This whole anti-religion movement has reached nut-job levels.



-- Edited by JW on Thursday 2nd of July 2015 01:00:15 AM

__________________
Dee


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 4206
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


KittyBiggerstaff wrote:

So what happened to the guy who ran his truck into it?  Has he been nominated for a Darwin Award?


 He faces a laundry list of charges, but I don't think it's been settled yet. He sounds like a mental case.

 

http://kfor.com/2014/10/27/oklahoma-man-accused-of-destroying-ten-commandments-monument-facing-charges/



__________________
Dee


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 4206
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


JW wrote:
 It says clearly that it was a gift to the people from someone who cherished both, the Bible and the people.  It's not like the state did anything but say thank you.  This whole anti-religion movement has reached nut-job levels.

 


 The Oklahoma State Constitution reads:

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.

Public property was used, and by allowing the placement of the monument, the state indirectly gave its support.

If the citizens of Oklahoma object, they can modify their own state constitution.



__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 20332
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


JW wrote:
This whole anti-religion movement has reached nut-job levels.

 

Anti-religion? Only a zealot would see it that way.

 

 



__________________

Nytram Press    

© 2018

 

JW


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 3957
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


nytram wrote:
JW wrote:
This whole anti-religion movement has reached nut-job levels.

 

Anti-religion? Only a zealot would see it that way.

 

 


 No, just someone sick of the incessant rattle of empty heads pretending they have issues that matter.



__________________
JW


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 3957
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


Dee wrote:
JW wrote:
 It says clearly that it was a gift to the people from someone who cherished both, the Bible and the people.  It's not like the state did anything but say thank you.  This whole anti-religion movement has reached nut-job levels.

 


 The Oklahoma State Constitution reads:

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.

Public property was used, and by allowing the placement of the monument, the state indirectly gave its support.

If the citizens of Oklahoma object, they can modify their own state constitution.


 Where does it say the state can't accept a gift?  There is nothing in the gift that suggests the state is promoting religion.  The only inference that legitimately applies is the gracious acceptance of a citizen's devotion to his state expressed in the most sincere manner he could find.  Paraphrasing Freud, sometimes a gift is just a gift.



__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 1525
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


JW wrote:
nytram wrote:
JW wrote:
This whole anti-religion movement has reached nut-job levels.

 

Anti-religion? Only a zealot would see it that way.

 

 


 No, just someone sick of the incessant rattle of empty heads pretending they have issues that matter.


 Ignore him.

Nytram has clearly gone off his rocker. He foams at the mouth because some young airhead gets herself in an interesting condition, squeals that anyone reading the ten commandments is an idol worshiper and generally acts like Cotton Mather on loony pills.

This used to be a good board, but right now I will just sit back and wait for Nytram's meds to kick in.



__________________
Dee


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 4206
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


JW wrote:
Dee wrote:
JW wrote:
 It says clearly that it was a gift to the people from someone who cherished both, the Bible and the people.  It's not like the state did anything but say thank you.  This whole anti-religion movement has reached nut-job levels.

 


 The Oklahoma State Constitution reads:

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.

Public property was used, and by allowing the placement of the monument, the state indirectly gave its support.

If the citizens of Oklahoma object, they can modify their own state constitution.


 Where does it say the state can't accept a gift?  There is nothing in the gift that suggests the state is promoting religion.  The only inference that legitimately applies is the gracious acceptance of a citizen's devotion to his state expressed in the most sincere manner he could find.  Paraphrasing Freud, sometimes a gift is just a gift.


 

The state put said "gift" on public land.  See the portion in bold above. 

If they want to accept the gift, fine. According to the Oklahoma State Constitution, they just have to put it somewhere OFF public land.  Unless they want to modify the state constitution.

blankstare



__________________
Dee


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 4206
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


JW, you have made your opinion regarding jury verdicts clear (OJ is not guilty). Do you not think decisions by judges, especially those sitting on high courts, should be equally respected? The Oklahoma State Supreme Court, found 7-2 that the monument was in violation of the State Constitution. By your own reasoning with jury verdicts, the judges got it right.

__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 3251
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


JW wrote:

KittyBiggerstaff wrote:
nytram wrote:
KittyBiggerstaff wrote:

My view is that religious references shouldn't be incorporated into any new government structures at any level, but that we should leave alone those that have existed for a few centuries.

 


 This particular idol was erected by the family of State Rep. Mike Ritze in 2010.


Well, we can't truly call it an "idol," since it doesn't incorporate any human or animal form, but yes, since it's that recent, it should be moved to private property.  How much effort would that take?  Cripes, in 1999 the Cape Hatteras lighthouse was moved 1900 feet inland, due to ocean erosion.  If a 4800-ton structure can be lifted that distance, moving this relatively small monument to privately-owned property shouldn't be much of an effort. 


 It says clearly that it was a gift to the people from someone who cherished both, the Bible and the people.  It's not like the state did anything but say thank you.  This whole anti-religion movement has reached nut-job levels.



-- Edited by JW on Thursday 2nd of July 2015 01:00:15 AM



There is NOTHING anti-religious there. It is clearly and directly a violation of their very own Constitution. No one is telling them to destroy it, bury it, pretend it doesn't exist, etc. - that would be anti-religious. Honoring both the state and the federal Constitutions is the issue.

If they want Christian religion on government property, they had better allow for Jewish, Islamic, Satanist,
Buddhist, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and all other religions also. If you think that is a bad idea, maybe it is you who is anti-religious.

__________________
JW


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 3957
Date:
Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


Dee wrote:

JW, you have made your opinion regarding jury verdicts clear (OJ is not guilty). Do you not think decisions by judges, especially those sitting on high courts, should be equally respected? The Oklahoma State Supreme Court, found 7-2 that the monument was in violation of the State Constitution. By your own reasoning with jury verdicts, the judges got it right.


 A jury verdict is a decision of peers of the accused.  That is a very different thing than a panel of people set above the rest of society with the power to affect all of society.  Respecting the decision of the judges requires submission to it, not agreement with it.  BTW,  I don't agree with the OJ verdict either.



-- Edited by JW on Thursday 2nd of July 2015 05:14:26 PM

__________________
JW


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 3957
Date:
RE: Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday
Permalink  
 


MaeBea wrote:
JW wrote:

 

KittyBiggerstaff wrote:
nytram wrote:
KittyBiggerstaff wrote:

My view is that religious references shouldn't be incorporated into any new government structures at any level, but that we should leave alone those that have existed for a few centuries.

 


 This particular idol was erected by the family of State Rep. Mike Ritze in 2010.


Well, we can't truly call it an "idol," since it doesn't incorporate any human or animal form, but yes, since it's that recent, it should be moved to private property.  How much effort would that take?  Cripes, in 1999 the Cape Hatteras lighthouse was moved 1900 feet inland, due to ocean erosion.  If a 4800-ton structure can be lifted that distance, moving this relatively small monument to privately-owned property shouldn't be much of an effort. 


 It says clearly that it was a gift to the people from someone who cherished both, the Bible and the people.  It's not like the state did anything but say thank you.  This whole anti-religion movement has reached nut-job levels.



-- Edited by JW on Thursday 2nd of July 2015 01:00:15 AM

 



There is NOTHING anti-religious there. It is clearly and directly a violation of their very own Constitution. No one is telling them to destroy it, bury it, pretend it doesn't exist, etc. - that would be anti-religious. Honoring both the state and the federal Constitutions is the issue.

If they want Christian religion on government property, they had better allow for Jewish, Islamic, Satanist,
Buddhist, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and all other religions also. If you think that is a bad idea, maybe it is you who is anti-religious.


 Funny, I'm the one speaking for tolerance.  Now that is irony.  If Jewish, Islamic, Satanist, Buddhist, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and all other religions also give a gift to the state, I would hope they too would be subject to gracious acceptance.  Since it is a gift to the state, anywhere they put it would necessarily be state property, even the dark corner of the back of a warehouse.

Also, SCOTUS already decided in the case for Texas that displaying the Ten Commandments on state property is NOT a violation of an kind.



__________________
1 2 3 4  >  Last»  | Page of 4  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard