A key ingredient in anti-christofascist legislation
The Edmond Sun reports that the measure claims to be secular in nature:
“The placement of this monument shall not be construed to mean that the State of Oklahoma favors any particular religion or denomination thereof over others,” the measure says. (source)
While that is a pretty clever addition, the measure is still as unconstitutional as it is dishonest. Simply saying that something has a secular purpose doesn’t make it so. See Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (“an ‘avowed’ secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The preeminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature…”)
The monument will be a reminder to people where the state gets its laws, Ritze said.
“We are just basically putting a monument up to remind us the philosophy of what our founders had in place for the nation and what is ordained for civil government,” Ritze said.
Lets go to the dishonesty first. Anyone who claims that the Ten Commandments are “where the state gets its laws” either hasn’t read the Ten Commandments or is lying. The commandments that prohibit murder, theft, and perjury may have parallels in American law, but three out of ten doesn’t get you there. Here is a good post debunking the myth that the Ten Commandments have anything at all to do with our laws.
Any more lies in here? Well, how about the bald-faced lie that the display of a Decalogue can possibly mean anything except the endorsement or favoring of a particular religion? Is it even possible to post a Decalogue without favoring at least one denomination of Christianity? I think not, since there are at least three different versions of the Decalogue.
Finally, lets look at the Constitutional issue.
Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) a government action must meet all three of the following requirements in order to conform with the Establishment Clause.
- The action must have a secular purpose
- The action must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion
- The action must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion
I don’t think you need a very sophisticated bullshit detector to tell that Mr. Ritze is being dishonest when he puts on his best Alfred E. Neuman face and says “really, trust me, this ain’t got nothin’ t’ do with religion.” Any judge or juror who buys that line should be forcibly sterilized, because we really do already have our fill of imbeciles in America.
Does a Decalogue “foster an excessive government entanglement with religion?” You mean aised from the State Capitol becoming a place where there is a monument to one particular religion?
The real killer is the “primary effect” prong. Believe it or not, there are a lot of us who don’t follow the Ten Commandments.
In 2005, the Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions on this issue that many say only leads to more confusion when considering whether a Decalogue display violates the Constitution (I think the pair makes it abundantly clear). The cases were McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) and Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).
In McCreary, two Kentucky counties posted King James versions of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. One county had a local pastor unveil the display. After the legal battle heated up, they put up post hoc secular justifications for the displays, and added other tokens to the displays to water down the religious message, but the court saw through this. The purpose of the displays was to promote Christianity, and that isn’t allowed under the Establishment Clause.
In Van Orden, the Decalogue had been standing there for 40 years among 17 monuments and 21 historical markers, “all designed to illustrate the “ideals” of those who settled in Texas and of those who have lived there since that time.” (source). In other words, the monument was placed there at a different time, as part of a larger display, and nobody was using it to try and shove religion down any one else’s throat.
Mr. Ritze’s dishonest and unconstitutional act is clearly of the McCreary variety, and if it passes it will meet the same fate.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
While I agree with you, I don’t think I agree with the article you linked to about why our laws are not derived from the 10 Commandments. The author uses questionable reasoning such as “the 10 Commandments say that you shouldn’t commit adultery, and we don’t have any laws like that.” The article then acknowledges that at one point we DID. So at best, this would prove that some of our laws, THESE DAYS, are not based on the 10 Commandments. In fact, the original proscriptions against adultery were very likely influenced by the 10 Commandments. Who’s to say that the rest of our laws didn’t have beginnings in the same roots?
Again, I agree with you, but that one linked article provides some reasoning which is at best questionable and unverifiable.
Not an unfair or unreasonable position to take… but then that still leaves the Ten Commandments with a 40% success rate.
Lets give adultery the benefit of the doubt and accept that we have parallel prohibitions on murder, theft, perjury, and adultery.
Now lets look at non-christian legal systems. I am not an expert on those, but I presume that we would find similar prohibitions across most legal systems. Of course, definitions of adultery change — as the Romans said that sex with a prostitute was not “adultery,” but “adultery” was still (I think, correct me if I am wrong) prohibited.
[…] of church, here is an interesting article about church-state issues: in Oklahoma, someone is trying to get the 10 commandments placed on state grounds: Oklahoma lawmaker, Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, filed a bill in the Oklahoma House of […]
More irrational idiocy coming from my home state. The state legislature should go home and turn off the lights in the chambers instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on the electricity bill. This serves a dual purpose. Less global warming AND less public displays that make evident that the average legislature has an IQ that just barely qualifies them to live without supervision.
Marc:
I agree. I think the notion that our laws were necessarily based on some kind of religious morality is hogwash. Every single one of the laws other than the ones which necessarily implicate Spaceghost (e.g., “Thou shalt have no other Gods…”) can be, and are, justified based on completely areligious grounds. I just had a problem with that guy’s reasoning.
Excellent post Marc. I would only note that the Lemon test has been criticized to death (mostly in concurring opinions) by the Supreme Court, and rarely mentioned in many of its recent rulings. The “excessive entanglement” prong, which was the basis for the decision in Lemon, has been obliterated. I think Justice O’Connor’s (fluid) “Endorsement Test” probably rules the day today.
Kyle Kaiser
arbitraryandfanciful.wordpress.com
Yes, it has been criticized… and in one opinion, Scalia noted in a dissent that every justice ruling for the majority had, in their own dissents and concurrences, stabbed holes in Lemon. However, Lemon survives… I prefer O’Connor’s test myself, but until the court actually does overrule Lemon, at least the district courts and Circuit Courts are bound by it. (Well, theoretically… much like no circuit has ever actually supported Lawrence v. Texas, who knows, maybe the circuits will revolt against Lemon).
I hope Rep. Mike Ritze, R and Oklahoma display the 10 Commandments. As a tax payer and Uniformed Services volunteer greatly support it and do not mind if it is payed with my tax dollars. HE is coming soon and then you will know…
What is a “Uniformed Services volunteer?” Is that like what Dwight Schrutte is? By “HE is coming soon”… are you talking about Santa?
[…] to Sucking on Lemon (v. Kurtzman, that is) Taste the Lemon (v. Kurtzman)Remember Mike Rintze, the Oklahoma bozo who filed the “Ten Commandments Monument Display Act,” in the Oklahoma House of Representatives seeking to have a monument of the Ten Commandments placed […]
[…] think for a moment that Mike Ritze and Don Wildmon aren’t looking at this with […]
How does this:
“The placement of this monument shall not be construed to mean that the State of Oklahoma favors any particular religion or denomination thereof over others,” the measure says. ”
reconcile with the fact that he voted “nay” to the Gay Pastor’s prayer?
http://peacearena.org/2009/02/20-no-votes-in-oklahoma-legislature-for-gay-pastors-prayer/
RITZE IS A HYPOCRITE.
.
While many US Court decisions have rendered certain state and local actions regarding religion “Unconstitutional”, these decisions do not mean that other “religious” actions are unconstitutional. To understand what can or cannot be done, one must first go to the source of the “separation” clause, which is not a separation clause at all. The actual clause in the US Constitution Amendment #1 says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. There is nothing in this clause that even comes close to separation. Quite the contrary is true: the Congress of the United States is prohibited from making a law that keeps someone from exercising their faith.
Virtually all of the US Court decisions that have been made regarding the “separation” clause have been faulty. There is nothing in the first Amendment that applies to state or local laws. There is nothing in the first Amendment that prohibits displays of religious nature. There is nothing in the first Amendment that prohibits prayer.
One of the most misinterpreted clauses in the US Constitution is the first Amendment. This amendment was inserted into the US Constitution to ensure that every American has the right to exercise their religious faith, and to limit the power of the Federal Government to force a particular religion on the people.
If one really takes a gander at these disputed 10 commandments and pictures them in action, they would see a world void of prisions, need of judges or police. We tell G-d to get out of the land with his 10 simple laws so we can write thousands of laws that bring about additional laws, that do little to make our world a safer place to live. I personally like His laws and will need to because my next home I will be living under these very simple 10 commandments, so I better get used to them in this brief life.
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
~ Tripoli of Barbary. Art. 11. – Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
Great to see a state FINALLY stand up for the soverign values America was founded on – instead of those that the handful of judges of the supreme court have chosen to usurp. These are also the values adherred to by over 70% of our nation – according to all recent surveys.
It is so sad that someone argues against this. I am reading the 5000 Year Leap. It is simply a historic book about the founding of America and what our forefathers went through. It is NOT outdated. They thought of all of the things that are going on today… Their concern was for ultimate dictatorship and abuse of power… They examined many things, could speak multiple languages and were probably much more knowledgeable about foreign values and ways of life than we think we are in front of our computers living our day to day life (with all the “wonderful” news resources we have)… AMERICA WAS AND IS a CHRISTIAN founded nation. You don’t have to be a Chrisitan. BUT, lets say we give tolerance to ALL and be tolerant OF ALL. Do you realize that the Muslim population is growing 3 times faster than non muslim? Do you realize that within 50 year, we should be a Muslim nation by default? Did you EVER happen to THINK – that when that happens, you will be forbidden from writing such comments on either side of issues such as these. History repeats itself (too bad we as Americans are too self absorbed AND ignorant to see the writing on the wall).
That is not to say that Muslim=Loss of FREEDOM, but name me one Muslim majority ruled nation where tolerance and fairness are embraced. Don’t think about your single minded opinion, think about the BIG picture…
Pam, I am as alarmed at the growth of Islam as you are — but for a VERY different reason.
I believe that religious fundamentalists are a threat to a free society. The fact is, the United States was not founded as a “Christian” nation, and even if it was, we’ve evolved beyond that. (For example, we were also founded as a slave-owning nation, but we grew out of that).
What scares me is that as bad as christian fundamentalists are, muslim fundamentalists do tend to be even worse. However, shit-for-brains christians like yourself are laying the groundwork for muslim fundamentalists of the future. You superstitious idiots try and claim that since 70% of the United States population is Christian, therefore, the majority should dictate what the religious values are for the rest of the population. One day, in the not-so-distant-future, there will be a town in America where muslims will make up a majority — and they’ll start relying on years of “culture war” precedent, using YOUR arguments against all of us, tearing down any images of people or animals (as the Koran prohibits them) or pushing the Koran in the public schools… and they’ll be able to get away with it if the crusade to jam Christianity down our throats is allowed to succeed.
My only comment is that I would rather live as if there is deffinetly A God and wake to find out that there is no God.
than to live as if there is no God and find out that there is A God.
Indeed, Jim. Pascal’s wager in effect.
Two questions:
(1) Why does your “liv[ing] as if there is [definitely] a God” mean that the government can (or should, or can’t or shouldn’t) display a religious symbol on state grounds?
(2)What does that mean, to “live as if there is [definitely] a God”? Most of mainstream Christianity believes that it doesn’t matter (much) how you live your life, just that you believe. And of course, living as if there’s a God that wants you to follow the rules of Islam is very different than living as if there’s a God that wants you to follow the rules of Mormonism is very different than living as if the gods of Hinduism exist … Sorry Marc, these are questions for another blog…
Ten Key to Success…
[…]Oklahoma Lawmaker Proposes Measure to Place 10 Commandments at State Capitol « The Legal Satyricon[…]…