Judge Orders Removal of Oklahoma Ten Commandments Monument Within 30 Days

  • Thread starter Thread starter Son_of_Niall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Son_of_Niall

Guest
OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — A state district judge has ordered that a Ten Commandments monument on the Oklahoma state capitol grounds must be removed within 30 days.
Click to expand...
Seventh District Court Judge Thomas Prince issued the order on Friday after he denied a motion by Attorney General Scott Pruitt, which asserted that a June order by the Oklahoma Supreme Court to remove the monument demonstrated unconstitutional prejudice against religion.
Click to expand...
As previously reported, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the monument must be removed because it violates Article 2, Section 5, of the Oklahoma Constitution, which states that property cannot be used to promote a “church denomination or system of religion.”
Click to expand...
christiannews.net/2015/09/12/judge-orders-removal-of-oklahoma-ten-commandments-monument-within-30-days/
 
Not surprising. I am shocked we still continue to have, “In God We Trust” on our currency.

I mean this sarcastically, of course.
 
Son_of_Niall said:
christiannews.net/2015/09/12/judge-orders-removal-of-oklahoma-ten-commandments-monument-within-30-days/
Click to expand...
The Ten Commandments do endorse a particular set of religious beliefs on state property. Therefore, I believe they should be removed. First, the commandments as a whole were given to Moses and the Jewish people, and thus they endorse Judaism. They were adopted by Christians and therefore also endorse Christianity. That leaves out Islam, which believes the Hebrew Bible and New Testament were corrupted, as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, and a host of other U.S. religious minorities. It also omits various forms of Paganism, which believes in multiple gods rather than monotheism. And of course non-believers are confronted with religious endorsement on public government property as well.

OTOH, certain of the commandments are moral principles which most sane-thinking people would agree with, apart from differences in the details. For example, moral principles forbidding murder, theft, and adultery and honoring parents are beneficial for the social fabric of the whole society. Nonetheless, the focus on the existence of G-d in the first place as well as on only one G-d, plus the commandment that speaks of honoring a Sabbath day, are too specifically oriented toward particular religious beliefs to be advertised on state property.
 
meltzerboy said:
Thanks for the link. I disagree with the ruling since I think it reveals a bias against non-believers. Further, the association of G-d with money is not in the best interest of believers either.
Click to expand...
Well they could change it to,

“In God we trust, all others must pay cash” 😃
 
meltzerboy said:
The Ten Commandments do endorse a particular set of religious beliefs on state property. Therefore, I believe they should be removed. First, the commandments as a whole were given to Moses and the Jewish people, and thus they endorse Judaism. They were adopted by Christians and therefore also endorse Christianity. That leaves out Islam, which believes the Hebrew Bible and New Testament were corrupted, as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, and a host of other U.S. religious minorities. It also omits various forms of Paganism, which believes in multiple gods rather than monotheism. And of course non-believers are confronted with religious endorsement on public government property as well.

OTOH, certain of the commandments are moral principles which most sane-thinking people would agree with, apart from differences in the details. For example, moral principles forbidding murder, theft, and adultery and honoring parents are beneficial for the social fabric of the whole society. Nonetheless, the focus on the existence of G-d in the first place as well as on only one G-d, plus the commandment that speaks of honoring a Sabbath day, are too specifically oriented toward particular religious beliefs to be advertised on state property.
Click to expand...
There goes Moses and the Ten Commandments in Washington. Believe there are a number of those on buildings since they were built. Let’s just deny our Judo-Christian heritage which was what this country was built on. All a mistake. Blow it up.
 
In my opinion, every Christian and Jewish person (sorry, meltzerboy) in the country should purchase a set of Ten Commandment monuments and install them on their front lawn in protest.
 
meltzerboy said:
The Ten Commandments do endorse a particular set of religious beliefs on state property. Therefore, I believe they should be removed. First, the commandments as a whole were given to Moses and the Jewish people, and thus they endorse Judaism. They were adopted by Christians and therefore also endorse Christianity. That leaves out Islam, which believes the Hebrew Bible and New Testament were corrupted, as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, and a host of other U.S. religious minorities. It also omits various forms of Paganism, which believes in multiple gods rather than monotheism. And of course non-believers are confronted with religious endorsement on public government property as well.

OTOH, certain of the commandments are moral principles which most sane-thinking people would agree with, apart from differences in the details. For example, moral principles forbidding murder, theft, and adultery and honoring parents are beneficial for the social fabric of the whole society. Nonetheless, the focus on the existence of G-d in the first place as well as on only one G-d, plus the commandment that speaks of honoring a Sabbath day, are too specifically oriented toward particular religious beliefs to be advertised on state property.
Click to expand...
Isn’t our whole legal system based on parts of The Ten Commandments?

Leave out other religions? What religion endorses or doesn’t accept these as common sense and good for running a peaceful society?
 
MonikaBarbara said:
In my opinion, every Christian and Jewish person (sorry, meltzerboy) in the country should purchase a set of Ten Commandment monuments and install them on their front lawn in protest.
Click to expand...
In protest, if you wish, but otherwise out of pride and religious conviction. There is nothing wrong with displaying religious symbols on one’s own front lawn, just not on state property.
 
meltzerboy said:
In protest, if you wish, but otherwise out of pride and religious conviction. There is nothing wrong with displaying religious symbols on one’s own front lawn, just not on state property.
Click to expand...
Are you a practicing Jew?
 
lax16 said:
Isn’t our whole legal system based on parts of The Ten Commandments?

Leave out other religions? What religion endorses or doesn’t accept these as common sense and good for running a peaceful society?
Click to expand...
As I noted, some of the commandments are common moral principles. But those endorsing the existence of one G-d and the commandment that speaks about a Sabbath day are specific to monotheistic religions.

Our legal system is based on moral principles derived from Judeo-Christian values, as well as values of other religions. That still doesn’t mean we should advertise, and thus endorse, specific religious beliefs. In its equal treatment of all, the law should be blind to religion, race, color, ethnic origin, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital and veteran status, and so forth.
 
meltzerboy said:
Thanks for the link. I disagree with the ruling since I think it reveals a bias against non-believers. Further, the association of G-d with money is not in the best interest of believers either.
Click to expand...
83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. I dare say that the motto may not be removed soon.
 
lax16 said:
Are you a practicing Jew?
Click to expand...
In certain ways, yes; however, I am less orthodox than some Jews. But that has nothing to do with the present case, or perhaps everything to do with it, for Jews should realize that the disregard, discrimination, or oppression of any other group, including non-believers, is a signal that they are also in jeopardy.
 
lax16 said:
Are you a practicing Jew?
Click to expand...
I suspect that he might just be one of the people in this country who has been too ingrained in political correctness. I say this with respect for him, because I understand the mindset; I am surrounded by liberals, and there is such a great pressure to not “offend” anyone, and be inclusive.
 
aicirt said:
There goes Moses and the Ten Commandments in Washington. Believe there are a number of those on buildings since they were built. Let’s just deny our Judo-Christian heritage which was what this country was built on. All a mistake. Blow it up.
Click to expand...
No, I am not calling for denial of our Judeo-Christian heritage. I am simply advocating that we be respectful to those people who do not share our Judeo-Christian heritage, including believers of different religions and non-believers. That is what America is all about: mutual respect and tolerance for all. They are the ideals we are continuously striving for.
 
Again, if the majority of America claims themselves as Christian; you are proposing that the majority advocate their rights and beliefs for the minority. How does that prove any of your points other than merely being politically correct?

Just to validate my numbers:

abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356&page=1
 
MonikaBarbara said:
I suspect that he might just be one of the people in this country who has been too ingrained in political correctness. I say this with respect for him, because I understand the mindset; I am surrounded by liberals, and there is such a great pressure to not “offend” anyone, and be inclusive.
Click to expand...
I do not believe in PC taken to extremes, such as feeling the need to always use gender neutral language (freshpeople instead of freshmen, for example!) or in comedy, as Jerry Seinfeld pointed out. Even the substitution of Happy Holidays in place of Merry Christmas can appear trivial. After all, Happy Holidays may also be offensive to non-believers or those who do not celebrate holidays, such as JW’s. But this case goes beyond political correctness since it involves an affirmation of a specific religious belief on government property.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top