And … cue more cries of the ALLEGED “War on Christianity.”
It is written — by the state’s Supreme Court — that the Ten Commandments statue sitting on state property at the Oklahoman state capitol violates the state’s constitution and must be removed; like a bad flag, I’d say.
The statue — a six-feet-tall and three-feet-wide slab of stone that’s shaped vaguely like two tablets from a history book — has stood on capitol grounds since 2012; it was, however, briefly destroyed and then reinstalled in 2014.
The Oklahoma court handed down a clear yet concise ruling that the Ten Commandments is “obviously” a religious document, and the state constitution prohibits any public property from being used to support a specific religion. ‘Nuff said. I mean, it doesn’t get any clearer, right?
Statue defenders argue that, and wait for it, it’s rich, Texas allows a Ten Commandments statue, and that the Oklahoma monument was placed on the capitol grounds as “historical context,” given the influence the Ten Commandments had on the formation of American law.
Uh huh. Nice try. But seven of the court’s nine justices said their opinion “rests solely on the Oklahoma constitution with no regard for federal jurisprudence.”
Bruce Prescott, an ordained Baptist minister of all things, and one of the plaintiffs in the case against the statue, said that the statue gives the impression that the state endorses Christianity as an official religion:
“I’m not opposed to Ten Commandment monuments; I’m opposed to them on government property. How do you take a covenant between God and his people and make it a secular monument?”
That from a Baptist, though Prescott says Baptists have historically defended the separation of church and state, and have insisted that religious texts continue to be interpreted in a religious context.
Oklahoma’s Attorney General Scott Pruitt, however, says the court “got it wrong”:
“The court completely ignored the profound historical impact of the Ten Commandments on the foundation of Western law.”
Pruitt’s office will file a petition calling for a stay of the court’s order and noted that because of the court’s interpretation of the section of the state constitution, it might be “necessary to repeal it.”
Now he’s gonna start repealing the state Constitution over a religious text? Surely anyone with half a brain, and even some Republicans, can see that is a clear violation of Separation of Church and State.
Of course, this is also bad news for the Satanic Temple and a Hindu group, who each planned their own statues for placement on the capitol grounds.
Look, let me make this queer, about flags and religious text:
You can have your Confederate flag. You can wave it, pray to it, fly it above your trailer, bumpersticker it to your pickup, wear it on a hat, a shirt, a pair of pants, or even tramp stamp it to your lower back, but do not ask that it fly above government property.
As for the Ten Commandments? You can have a copy; you can pray to it, erect it in front of your trailer, bumpersticker it to your pickup, wear it on a hat, a shirt, a pair of pants, or even tramp stamp it to your lower back, but do not ask that it sit on government property.
Everybody get that?
No one is saying you can’t be religious; they’re just saying it doesn’t belong on a government property. And no one is saying you can fly a racist, bigoted, hateful flag, Nazi or Confederate; you just can’t do it at the state house.