• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Oklahoma Supreme Court orders Ten Commandments removed from Capitol

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
xBiffx said:
Yeah, but I'm not aware how that benefits a religion. Was their history on display?
Click to expand...

They are part of the foundational texts of several major religions. Displaying them on government property serves as a de facto endorsement of that religion.

Come on, this isn't complicated.
 
xBiffx said:
Yeah, but I'm not aware how that benefits a religion. Was their history on display?
Click to expand...
Was their history on display? What does that even mean and how is that relevant? It's a religious symbol.

mundane said:
It amazes me that people criticizing the placement of these sensible rules in a government location seem to have never read them. It's not like they include "Though shalt have no other gods before me", prohibitions on idols or graven images or using the name of the deity in an unholy context, specifications about setting aside day(s) for worship, and so on.

There is nothing religious about them.
Click to expand...

xBiffX, you don't see a problem with that?
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
They are part of the foundational texts of several major religions. Displaying them on government property serves as a de facto endorsement of that religion.

Come on, this isn't complicated.
Click to expand...

So again, how does this benefit a religion. More broadly, how does this benefit only religion? Even more broadly, what is this benefit and why is it not allowed?
 
xBiffx said:
So again, how does this benefit a religion. More broadly, how does this benefit only religion? Even more broadly, what is this benefit and why is it not allowed?
Click to expand...

It's endorsement of a particular religion or religions which prominently feature the 10 Commandments (Judeo-Christian religions). It's not the state's place to endorse ANY religion. Prominent portrayal of religious texts on state grounds amounts to free advertising, and it's seen as the state legitimizing one religion over others.
 
xBiffx said:
So again, how does this benefit a religion. More broadly, how does this benefit only religion? Even more broadly, what is this benefit?
Click to expand...

You're asking how the government endorsing a religion (or religions) benefits them? Isn't that obvious? Even though it probably only benefits religion, whether or not it only benefits religion is not relevant, as it would still be illegal even if it had some other purpose.

As to what that benefit is, I will quote Sandra Day O'Connor:

Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.
Click to expand...
 
the righty bubble had a bad week. They all need therapy badly after that but instead they will double down.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
It's endorsement of a particular religion or religions which prominently feature the 10 Commandments (Judeo-Christian religions). It's not the state's place to endorse ANY religion. Prominent portrayal of religious texts on state grounds amounts to free advertising, and it's seen as the state legitimizing one religion over others.
Click to expand...

eskimospy said:
You're asking how the government endorsing a religion (or religions) benefits them? Isn't that obvious? Even though it probably only benefits religion, whether or not it only benefits religion is not relevant, as it would still be illegal even if it had some other purpose.

As to what that benefit is, I will quote Sandra Day O'Connor:
Click to expand...

Where is this endorsement you speak of? I don't see anything on that statue that claims one religion or a set of religions is better or worse than any other.

Are no smoking signs an endorsement for tobacco companies simply because they mention their product?
 
xBiffx said:
Where is this endorsement you speak of? I don't see anything on that statue that claims one religion or a set of religions is better or worse than any other.

Are no smoking signs an endorsement for tobacco companies?
Click to expand...


Stop trying to be cute. Do you really have time for such nonsense?
 
xBiffx said:
So again, how does this benefit a religion. More broadly, how does this benefit only religion? Even more broadly, what is this benefit and why is it not allowed?
Click to expand...
Well, the state capitol is a place of secular law making. So, how does the Ten Commandments benefit secular law?

Let's look specifically at the Oklahoma monument.

"I am the Lord thy God". - doesn't benefit secular law making.

1: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me". doesn't benefit secular law making. This does allow me to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as long as I worship his noodly appendage after God.

2. "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images"...too late, because this whole monument is a graven image. Oh, and doesn't benefit secular law making.

3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy God in vein." Hey, look! another pointless writing that doesn't benefit secular law making.

4. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy". Irreleveant to secular law making. Anyone else notice a theme developing?

5. "Honor they father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Irrelevant.

6. "Thou shalt not kill". Well, yeah. Here we go! Of course, I'm assuming that Oklahoma already has this law on the books. Redundant - not needed.

7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Maybe that's on the books in Oklahoma, but I doubt it. Irrelevant.

8. "Thou shalt not steal". Here's the second relevant law, but again, it's already on the books somewhere. Redundant - not needed.

9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". It's only a crime when you lie to the gub'mint, and it's on the books. Half relevant, totally redundant.

10. Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's house, wife, manservant, maidservant, cattle, or anything". I hope this isn't on the books in Oklahoma. Irrelevant.


So, these 10 commandments serve what purpose being located on state capitol property? Oh, none. They serve zero purpose. Anything listed on that piece of rock that is relevant is already a law. At best, its redundant for 2-3 laws. For the other 7, it's irrelevant.
 
I would have happily donated towards the cost of a monument to my Noodly Master.


Gotta give the Oklahoma Supreme Court some credit, it's rare to see intelligent decisions come out of that area of the country when religion is involved.
 
nickqt said:
So, how does the Ten Commandments benefit secular law?
Click to expand...

Many laws have their roots in those Commandments or at least the principles around them. I'm fairly certain this is why they were even placed there to begin with. Not to promote some religion over the other. But hey, the ACLU got work to do. Who am I to get in the way of progress.
 
xBiffx said:
Many laws have their roots in those Commandments or at least the principles around them. I'm fairly certain this is why they were even placed there to begin with. Not to promote some religion over the other.
Click to expand...
As in many, you mean 2-3. And they're already on the books, so why the need for a stone monument that has 7 absolutely irrelevant laws that are not on the books?
 
xBiffx said:
Where is this endorsement you speak of? I don't see anything on that statue that claims one religion or a set of religions is better or worse than any other.

Are no smoking signs an endorsement for tobacco companies simply because they mention their product?
Click to expand...

You can't seriously be arguing this nonsense. Read the SCOTUS opinion that I linked if you want to know how it's an endorsement.

Who knew that when people put a "Barack Obama" sign in their front yard that they aren't endorsing him? They just happen to be mentioning that someone named Barack Obama exists. hahaha.
 
xBiffx said:
Many laws have their roots in those Commandments or at least the principles around them. I'm fairly certain this is why they were even placed there to begin with. Not to promote some religion over the other. But hey, the ACLU got work to do. Who am I to get in the way of progress.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter why they were placed there.
 
in my religion we think Christianity itself is a trick of the devil. People are allowed to sin in this religion and be forgiven later on. This perpetuates sin. I want this placed on a rock next to the 10 commandments.
 
eskimospy said:
You can't seriously be arguing this nonsense. Read the SCOTUS opinion that I linked if you want to know how it's an endorsement.

Who knew that when people put a "Barack Obama" sign in their front yard that they aren't endorsing him? They just happen to be mentioning that someone named Barack Obama exists. hahaha.
Click to expand...

Let me know when the sign in question says Catholic, Jewish, or any other religion that this sign supposedly endorses.

Again, I guess the no smoking sign can be seen as an endorsement for Philip Morris now.
 
xBiffx said:
Let me know when the sign in question says Catholic, Jewish, or any other religion that this sign supposedly endorses.

Again, I guess the no smoking sign can be seen as an endorsement for Philip Morris now.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I already linked you a SCOTUS opinion on exactly this topic. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It is an endorsement of abrahamic religions and therefore unconstitutional. If you have any further questions as to how exactly I have provided you with the controlling legal opinion on the matter.

By the way a no smoking sign is a sign of disapproval by governments, and could certainly be taken as such. Disapproving or endorsing smoking is not unconstitutional like this is though.
 
xBiffx said:
Many laws have their roots in those Commandments or at least the principles around them. I'm fairly certain this is why they were even placed there to begin with. Not to promote some religion over the other. But hey, the ACLU got work to do. Who am I to get in the way of progress.
Click to expand...

Beyond the not stealing and not killing lets hear some more examples to support you claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top