Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Catholic News

Home

Home
Catholic
Religion News
Okla. ruling against 10 Commandment statue blasted as extreme, inconsistent

Okla. ruling against 10 Commandment statue blasted as extreme, inconsistent

Last updated on: July 10, 2015 at 6:16 am by CNA Daily News

Okla. ruling against 10 Commandment statue blasted as extreme, inconsistent 2015-07-10T06:16:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Oklahoma City, Okla., Jul 10, 2015 / 12:16 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Responding to the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling that a Ten Commandments monument on capitol grounds violates the state constitution, critics say that the decision is a legal outlier that ignores the commandments’ historic importance.

“It’s a really unusual decision. A lot of states have somewhat similar provisions, but to my knowledge all of them don’t interpret them in an extreme way,” said Jon Scruggs, legal counsel with the religious liberty group Alliance Defending Freedom. “I think it’s a misinterpretation of the Oklahoma constitution.”

The Oklahoma legislature’s involvement endorsed “the historical message of what the monument conveyed,” Scruggs told CNA July 8. “Throughout our history there have been religious people, religious ideas, religious principles, and it’s okay to acknowledge that.”

The Oklahoma City Supreme Court on June 30 ruled 7-2 that the 6-foot-tall granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the capitol grounds violates the state’s constitutional ban on the use of public property to benefit a religion.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt had argued that the Ten Commandments monument was constitutional on the grounds that it was historical in nature. He also said it was almost identical to a Texas version that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled constitutional, the Associated Press reports.

The state’s highest court said that the Ten Commandments are “obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths.”

Scruggs suggested this decision contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court’s conclusions.

“Although the Ten Commandments have a religious message, it also has an overwhelming historical message that conveys principles about not killing and not lying that really serve as a foundation for a lot of laws.”

He also questioned claims that the monument benefits religion.

“It’s not like a religion owns the monument. It’s not like a religion put up that monument,” he said.

Scruggs said that under an extreme application of the court’s reasoning, a government-run fire department could not put out a church fire because that would benefit religion.

“That’s exactly why other state courts have taken somewhat similar language and interpret it accordingly,” he said.

“We don’t have to go on a ‘seek and destroy’ mission to wipe away history, to wipe away religious people’s contribution to our country, to faithfully comply with the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution).”

Pruitt, the state’s attorney general, said that the Oklahoma Supreme Court “got it wrong” and that its decision contradicts its previous rulings. He said his office would ask for a rehearing and that the constitution might need to be changed.

Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City also criticized the decision.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Capitol grounds ignores its historical significance in the formation of our state and as an ancient law code having prominence at the place where lawmakers work to enact wise and just laws,” he said June 30. “The Court’s dismissal of these established facts is deeply concerning and disappointing.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma represented the plaintiffs in the case.

Brian Henderson, the ACLU group’s legal director, said June 30 that the monument “created a divisive and hostile Oklahoma” and sent the message that “some religious beliefs are more valued than others.”

The original monument was set up at the capitol in 2012. In October 2014, a man who said he was mentally ill and said he was under the influence of the devil smashed his car into the monument, damaging it. The monument was then replaced in January.

The monument was funded by the family of State Rep. Mike Ritze, a Republican from Broken Arrow, Okla. whose bill authorized it. His family paid about $10,000 to build the monument.

Other groups have asked to put up monuments. These include a Hindu leader, the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and a group that wants to put up a depiction of Satan.

On July 7. Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin said the Ten Commandments would stay on capitol grounds. She cited the effort to ask the state Supreme Court to hold another hearing on the monument and proposed legislation to allow voters to amend the constitution.

Previous Post

July 10, 2015

California legislature withdraws physician-assisted suicide bill

Next Post

July 10, 2015 Considering WYD 2016 in Poland? Here's what one bishop wants you to know

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Why was Jesus' eating with tax collectors controversial?

Select your answer to see how you score.

They were wealthy They were healthy They were famous They were viewed as sinners