CornBurrito
Member
And some of them aren't. It still gives favor to one set of religions (the Abrahamic faiths), and immediately disrespects polytheistic religions.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Oklahoma Supreme Court: Ten Commandments Monument Must Be Removed
- Thread starter KingGondo
- Start date
- Status
And some of them aren't. It still gives favor to one set of religions (the Abrahamic faiths), and immediately disrespects polytheistic religions.
It's a set of famous laws. I definitely don't agree with many aspects of the Code of Hammurabi, many of which are religious, but it wouldn't bother me at all if they had a monument to it since it's a famous set of laws and that's why they would be there.
Super Nothing
Member
The Catholic Commandments are a little different. 1 & 2 are combined into just one commandment. 4 is "Honor thy father and mother." 5 is "Don't cross the streams."
You sure that fifth one isn't just jiggery-pokery?
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
It probably disrespects all non-Abrahamic monotheisms too. They can do the thing where they say they're all worshipping the same one god, but the rules and the message are all completely different.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
I dunno man, we still haven't gotten rid of those filthy reds yet. I think we need to add another line like "Don't fuck with us you communist hippy bastards, MURICA FOREVER."
Exactly!
You didn't answer my question. How can you justify an installation on public land telling people they can't believe in any other god? Unless you entirely reject the notion of a separation of church and state there's no way to do that.
partyphone
Banned
cool to see the oklahama supreme court isn't overrun by theocrats. Alabama on the other hand....
It's not a commandment to people visiting the court or something that has been established within the legal system. It's a purely aesthetic monument that exists because it's a famous set of laws. If they had a monument of the Code of Hammurabi I wouldn't feel compelled at all to follow any of the laws because I would recognise immediately that it's merely a thematically appropriate aesthetic monument.
It will be if the legislature has their way. They're already calling for the impeachment of the 7 justices who voted against the monument.
"It doesn't MEAN anything" doesn't really hold water when the people who put it up there clearly meant it to mean something.
Also if you had a hearing in a court and Hammurabi's code was hammered to the door, you had best start worrying.
The Code of Hammurabi isn't a religious symbol and the Ten Commandments are.
Could I make a monument listing the rules of baseball and claim it was "thematically appropriate"? Religious doctrine should not have any relation to law other than occasionally saying the same thing for different reasons.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
EDIT: Missed the part about it's funding.
It's not a purely aesthetic monument. It's a symbol of one religion, and the state has no business propping it up on public grounds.
I don't know what you're talking about. Did they mean for the laws to be incorporated into the local legal system?
I wouldn't worry because I know that the laws aren't incorporated into the legal system. Also we're talking about a monument that's clearly only there for aesthetic purposes.
Super Nothing
Member
To be fair, the Ten Commandments were removed from our state Supreme Court grounds back in 2003. The Justice that fought that ruling (Roy Moore), is the same guy that is protesting the gay marriage decision. He was removed from his position as a Justice because of it, and only got his seat back in 2012 when he was reelected.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
It says it was privately funded though, but that still doesn't mean it should be on public grounds.
These two always get me.
No idols please -> Statue of Virgin Mary, Jesus on the Cross, Ten Commandment tablet
Sabbath is broken to hell and back when they change it from Saturday to Sunday
No one could sense the irony of no idol rule when erecting the Ten Commandment explicitly saying so.
evilromero
Member
This is a state rights issue! Oh wait. Well, it's historical so there!
SocksAndShoes
Banned
Good, then they'll have no problem removing the useless hunk of stone from public grounds and replacing it with something that all faiths and denominations (or lack thereof) can enjoy.
Wait, what if my gremlin was on a flight that went into a different time zone?
Oh man, these comments.
"There are many who worship TREES.
Will you be a BIGOT and say only christian religion is valid and TREES are not valid and should not be removed from public square."
Completely logical.
"There are many who worship TREES.
Will you be a BIGOT and say only christian religion is valid and TREES are not valid and should not be removed from public square."
Completely logical.
Yes, it was "privately funded" by the family of a state representative, who then pushed a bill to get it installed on Capitol grounds.
Ancient laws, both religious and secular, were the ancient precursor for our legal system today. As a historic and aesthetic monument it makes perfect thematic sense to me. Having basketball laws there would maybe make less sense but it wouldn't bother me.
The Ten Commandments, the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta all seem to me like things that would make interesting monuments. None of them would be established, but as monuments they make sense.
If people are bothered by it then remove it. I'm talking about the claimed illegality of it. Again, I'm not familiar with the laws specific to Oklahoma but this doesn't seem to be counter to the first amendment as some people suggest.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
oh WOW, that's fucking ridiculous.
.Wikipedia said:
I don't know how having a monument for one religion and not any others doesn't fall under "preferring any one religion over another."
SocksAndShoes
Banned
EDIT: Sry, double post. Ignore this. Seriously, ignore it. Stop looking.
The establishment clause and all legal precedent regarding it is very strict regarding government and religion.
Aesthetic is not a passible defense on violating seperation of church and state.
BlastProcessing
Member
Go reread the first 4 commandments and explain to me why they have any place in a legal system. While you are at it, you can tell me how we should legislate against coveting.
Hello thought crime.
But I was looking forward to the Satanic statue that someone asked to be added too.
This was real, by the way.
Beaten by seconds (and I guess it's Baphomet)
Would have been a nice tourist attraction. I'd want my picture taken with Baphomet.
Cap'n Cook
Member
As someone who does not believe in God or religion those mean absolutely nothing to me. If anything I would look at that monument as an art piece then a religious symbol. I don't understand how people get offended by things they don't believe in, that's like being offended by someone who says they hunt unicorns for sport.
It isn't about being offended, it's about making sure that the government doesn't outwardly favor one particular group over another.
And so religous people of other faiths should just deal with it that government is favoring another religion?
You quoted me saying that they aren't being established and then you ask me why they should be established.
BlastProcessing
Member
Separation of Church and State is not about being offended. It's a basic protection against government sanctioned persecution.
The founding fathers had very real experience with what happens when the two entangle.
Putting them on government property is a tacit endorsement of the Commandments as a part of Western Law. This was even their argument before the court, that the commandments represent legal, not religious history.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
This is good.
Unfortunately the U.S Supreme Court in Van Order V. Perry that 10 commandments was constitutional based on historical reasons. I don't agree with it and it was a 5-4 split. Curious to see what happens here.
Why should obviously relgious laws be displayed on government property.
Aesthetic is not enough reason.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
I get where you were going with this but you really should have said non-Abrahamic. The Ten Commandments came from the Jewish scripture. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God.
Everyone breaks that last one, people never learn.
Super Nothing
Member
I'm an atheist from the south. The number of people around here that want to legislate religion or believe that the US was founded as a Christian nation is appalling. If we let them have their way, gay marriage would still be illegal and faith based discrimination would be totally acceptable. These people are actively holding back science by trying to hold up Intelligent Design as an equally valid theory to Evolution. These people are actively holding back society by trying to force their dogma on everyone else. I want it to be known that their religion has no sway over the law. I want it to be known that their faith is theirs and only theirs and the rest of us are not beholden to it or lesser citizens for not holding the same beliefs.
shaowebb
Member
If you make a law that says you can't do it then don't do it is how I see it. Thing is...I don't understand why they made the law? I'm an atheist and don't mind religious stuff out there. It'd be like getting offended at someone saying Merry Christmas or Happy Hannukah instead of Happy Holidays to me.
Way I see it is if you want to let this one rock then just abolish the law and let everyone have permission to put up statues. That'd be my solution honestly...let everyone have a voice instead of either giving one preferential allowances or plain silencing them all. Just let it rock and let em all celebrate what they love. I'm always more for good will towards all than tightening the reigns honestly.
Way I see it is if you want to let this one rock then just abolish the law and let everyone have permission to put up statues. That'd be my solution honestly...let everyone have a voice instead of either giving one preferential allowances or plain silencing them all. Just let it rock and let em all celebrate what they love. I'm always more for good will towards all than tightening the reigns honestly.
Don't you make fun of my Lord and saviour!
- Status