Government, religion, and "secular" vs. "religious"

[PAF]

SECTION II-5

Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied,
donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or
for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister,
or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as
such.

https://oksenate.gov/sites/default/f...019-12/oc2.pdf

[Sonny Tufts]

SECTION II-5

Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied,
donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or
for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister,
or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as
such.

https://oksenate.gov/sites/default/f...019-12/oc2.pdf

The Oklahoma Supreme Court relied on this provision when it ruled that it was violated when a Ten Commandments monument was placed on the state capitol grounds. Although the monument had been donated by a private citizen, it was placed on the grounds pursuant to a legislative act.

The plain intent of Article 2, Section 5 is to ban State Government, its officials, and its subdivisions from using public money or property for the benefit of any religious purpose. Use of the words “no,” “ever,” and “any” reflects the broad and expansive reach of the ban...

To reinforce the broad, expansive effect of Article 2, Section 5, the framers specifically banned any uses “indirectly” benefitting religion. As this Court has previously observed, the word “indirectly” signifies the doing, by an obscure, circuitous method, something which is prohibited from being done directly, and includes all methods of doing the thing prohibited, except the direct means... Prohibiting uses of public property that “indirectly” benefit a system of religion was clearly done to protect the ban from circumvention based upon mere form and technical distinction...

The issue in the case at hand is whether the Oklahoma Ten Commandments monument violates the Oklahoma Constitution, not whether it violates the Establishment Clause. Our opinion rests solely on the Oklahoma Constitution with no regard for federal jurisprudence... As concerns the “historic purpose” justification, the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths.

Because the monument at issue operates for the use, benefit or support of a sect or system of religion, it violates Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution and is enjoined and shall be removed.

The Court denied a petition for rehearing. Two Justice joined in the following concurring opinion that addressed the "historic purpose" justification:

While agreeing that the Ten Commandments has historical significance, it is above all a religious symbol, and there is no basis to determine that the monument is primarily historical. Article II, Section 5 does not provide an exception for a religious monument that may be of some historical value. Article II, Section 5 is clear; legislative intent, the nature of the placement of a religious monument, its historical value, and whether a reasonable person would be offended are irrelevant; and any reliance on these factors in applying Article II, Section 5 is misplaced. The only question here is whether the monument benefits a system of religion. The Ten Commandments is an iconic symbol of the Christian religion and is inherently religious. Further, with the initial inscription being “I AM the LORD thy God,” the monument needs no external references to know that it is primarily and foremostly religious. It is honored in the Judeo–Christian system of religion for its religious significance...

Nonetheless, I would note that the historical value of the Ten Commandments is a recognition of the role they played in religion. The Ten Commandments are an iconic historic religious text from the Old Testament. However, the Ten Commandments are not mentioned in the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, or the Bill of Rights... There was no mention of the Ten Commandments in the debates at 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention... The United States Supreme Court has never cited the Ten Commandments.

Prescott v. Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission, 2015 OK 54 (Okla. 2015) (citations omitted)

https://casetext.com/case/prescott-v...l-pres-commn-1

[jmdrake]

SECTION II-5

Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied,
donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or
for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister,
or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as
such.

https://oksenate.gov/sites/default/f...019-12/oc2.pdf

Well there you go @Snowball.

Add to that Article 1 section 5.

§ 5. Public schools.

Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control; and said schools shall always be conducted in English: Provided, that nothing herein shall preclude the teaching of other languages in said public schools.

[Swordsmyth]

Why mandate the Bible and the 10 commandments for historical reasons and ignore all of the other history before and after? The Code of Hammurabi? The Magna Charter? The laws of the Iroquois Confederacy? It's a transparent attempt to bring religion back into public schools. I agree that there shouldn't be government schools, but they do exist. I understand (and sympathize) with the desire to counteract the rising tide of secular humanism and gender ideology but this is problematic.

Who said to ignore any of that?
But none of them are as important to our culture and history as the Bible and 10 Commandments.

[Swordsmyth]

Even if you don't believe in the incorporation doctrine (which means states can pass a law putting you in prison for a Ron Paul bumper sticker), all states, including Oklahoma, has some sort of religious freedom amendment.

https://www.oscn.net/applications/os...p?CiteID=84803

§ 2. Religious liberty - Polygamous or plural marriages.

Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

Not sure what the writers of the Oklahoma constitution meant by "perfect toleration of religious sentiment" but picking one religious text at the exclusion of all others doesn't sound like "perfect toleration." Anyhow, we'll see how the Oklahoma state courts and/or federal courts handle this soon enough I'm sure.

Toleration is inaction, it does not require action.
There is no connection between toleration and enforced "equal time" for all religions in history class or any part of the public square.

[Swordsmyth]

SECTION II-5

Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied,
donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or
for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister,
or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as
such.

https://oksenate.gov/sites/default/f...019-12/oc2.pdf

That's nice.
But that's not what is happening, unless they go beyond teaching history.

[Swordsmyth]

The Oklahoma Supreme Court relied on this provision when it ruled that it was violated when a Ten Commandments monument was placed on the state capitol grounds. Although the monument had been donated by a private citizen, it was placed on the grounds pursuant to a legislative act.



The Court denied a petition for rehearing. Two Justice joined in the following concurring opinion that addressed the "historic purpose" justification:



Prescott v. Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission, 2015 OK 54 (Okla. 2015) (citations omitted)

https://casetext.com/case/prescott-v...l-pres-commn-1

A bad ruling that needs to be overturned.

[Swordsmyth]

Well there you go @Snowball.

Add to that Article 1 section 5.

§ 5. Public schools.

Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control; and said schools shall always be conducted in English: Provided, that nothing herein shall preclude the teaching of other languages in said public schools.

There's no sectarian control here.

[Sonny Tufts]

A bad ruling that needs to be overturned.

The plain language of the Oklahoma Constitution too difficult for you?

It's hard to see why the Prescott case won't be determinative in getting rid of the display of the Commandments in the schools.

You cannot have a religious vacuum in your culture, if you do not fill the void with a righteous religion like Christianity it will be filled by an evil one

And naturally you want government bureaucrats to determine just which religions are righteous and which are evil. And just where do they get the theological expertise to do this?

There are places where religious vacuums can be filled. They are called churches, synagogues, mosques, and similar places. No one is forced to attend them, and aside from tax-exempt status and the ability to receive tax-deductible contributions from their supporters they receive no governmental assistance (or at least they're not supposed to).

[Swordsmyth]

The plain language of the Oklahoma Constitution too difficult for you?

It was for the court and you.

or
support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion

It's not doing any of that.

[jmdrake]

Who said to ignore any of that?
But none of them are as important to our culture and history as the Bible and 10 Commandments.

Toleration is inaction, it does not require action.
There is no connection between toleration and enforced "equal time" for all religions in history class or any part of the public square.

That's nice.
But that's not what is happening, unless they go beyond teaching history.

There's no sectarian control here.

To mandate one and only one religious text is by definition sectarian. There are also two versions of the 10 commandments in Christianity. There's also no way to know if they are "going beyond teaching history" unless you monitor every classroom. And how do you teach the "history" of the 10 commandments without saying "God handed them to Moses?" If you're going to go by history, you have to note that according to the Bible, Moses was in the royal palace in Egypt and would have learned the 42 commandments of Maat which predate his visit to Sinai by thousands of years.

https://glad.is/blogs/articles/42-ideals-of-maat

You can't just carve out a single piece of history without any context beyond "Thus saith the Lord" and call that teaching history.

[jmdrake]

It was for the court and you.

or
support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion

It's not doing any of that.

The Bible and the 10 commandments support a specific "system of religion" namely Christianity. And which Bible? Is the book of Enoch mandated as well? Will Oklahoma schoolchildren learn about Watcher Angels having sex with human women? Enoch is referenced in the New Testament book of Jude.

[Swordsmyth]

And naturally you want government bureaucrats to determine just which religions are righteous and which are evil. And just where do they get the theological expertise to do this?

There are places where religious vacuums can be filled. They are called churches, synagogues, mosques, and similar places. No one is forced to attend them, and aside from tax-exempt status and the ability to receive tax-deductible contributions from their supporters they receive no governmental assistance (or at least they're not supposed to).

History and culture determine which religions contradict the religion our nation was founded on.
Things like the 10 commandments, the Thugs don't get to claim murder as free exercise of their religion because this Nation was founded by Christians.
The public square can't be left a complete vacuum or idiots will claim that the Thugs have a religious right to murder as your argument does.

[Swordsmyth]

The Bible and the 10 commandments support a specific "system of religion" namely Christianity. And which Bible? Is the book of Enoch mandated as well? Will Oklahoma schoolchildren learn about Watcher Angels having sex with human women? Enoch is referenced in the New Testament book of Jude.

That's a broad category of religion, and it also includes Juadism.
It's not what the people who wrote the Constitution of the state intended.
Curriculum is up to the schools or the state that runs them as long as the state has schools (which they need to get out of their constitution) and as long as no specific religion's teachings are used to interpret whatever is taught as history.

[Swordsmyth]

To mandate one and only one religious text is by definition sectarian. There are also two versions of the 10 commandments in Christianity. There's also no way to know if they are "going beyond teaching history" unless you monitor every classroom. And how do you teach the "history" of the 10 commandments without saying "God handed them to Moses?" If you're going to go by history, you have to note that according to the Bible, Moses was in the royal palace in Egypt and would have learned the 42 commandments of Maat which predate his visit to Sinai by thousands of years.

https://glad.is/blogs/articles/42-ideals-of-maat

You can't just carve out a single piece of history without any context beyond "Thus saith the Lord" and call that teaching history.

You teach that this is what our ancestors believed.
You use the version they used.
And you don't teach that it is true or false.

Parents and activists (the left will be very motivated) will report if the teaching is exceeding historical boundaries.

[Sonny Tufts]

The public square can't be left a complete vacuum or idiots will claim that the Thugs have a religious right to murder as your argument does.

You're delusional. The Free Exercise Clause protects beliefs. It does not protect all actions taken in conjunction with beliefs. Murder will still be outlawed even if some idiot claims his religion requires him to murder.

Is Christianity's message so unappealing that it needs the government to promote it?

[Snowball]

Is Christianity's message so unappealing that it needs the government to promote it?

A cursory glance at world history from the early first century to the late fourth says the opposite.

[Snowball]

Well there you go @Snowball.

Add to that Article 1 section 5.

§ 5. Public schools.

Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control; and said schools shall always be conducted in English: Provided, that nothing herein shall preclude the teaching of other languages in said public schools.

Then let someone bring a case and try to stop it.
Meanwhile, those brats are going to be exposed to some TRUTH.

Moreover, those laws are fungible, they were added much later. States still have the right to endorse religions.

[ClaytonB]

You're delusional. The Free Exercise Clause protects beliefs. It does not protect all actions taken in conjunction with beliefs. Murder will still be outlawed even if some idiot claims his religion requires him to murder.

Is Christianity's message so unappealing that it needs the government to promote it?

This is completely missing the point. The argument you are making here was the status quo circa 1990. The claim of the weirdosexual crypto-Marxist culture-warriors was that, if we allow them to exist in peace (aka don't "impose our religion" on them), they will just be good neighbors like anybody else. Except for two men washing cars on Saturday on the driveway, we wouldn't even know that they're "gay". They're just like anybody else. So, we are supposed to allow the public space to become a kind of "neutral zone" where "religion is a purely private matter". We don't need to have street-preachers and awkward conversations with the fundamentalist guy at the mall handing out Chick tracts and denouncing sexual sins, among other things. We just need everybody to respect the civil law, and be whatever religion, belief or sexual practice that they want to be, behind closed-doors either at home or at their place of worship, or both. That was "the deal", the unwritten deal we were supposedly all being signed up for by the cultural Marxists in the post-60s cultural revolution. What we actually got was adults using the State as an instrument to butcher children in compliance with "Woke" ideology, whatever the hell that's supposed to be. So, there has been an absolute betrayal of this unwritten cultural, white-flag parley with the cultural Marxists that was supposed to usher in a new era of "tolerance". Instead of tolerance, we got kids being surgically altered for life, and that by force of law.

When you poke the Leviathan with a sharp stick, you are a fool if you think you will not be whiplashed with the Leviathan's tail. And that is precisely what is happening right now. These people are playing with fire they cannot even begin to comprehend. It's like entering a fight ring with Conor McGregor, agreeing to only use legal moves, and then trying to use no-holds barred moves on him during the fight. The only reason you weren't being dismantled instantly was the earlier agreement to play fair. If you want to change the fight rules in the middle of it and just have a street fight, well that's a whole other ball-game. We can do that, too, and we are infinitely better at it. And I assure you, you will never see the knockout blow coming. The idea that you can butcher children without baiting the literal, apocalyptic wrath of God is certifiable insanity. When the flames begin, religious fairness in government classrooms will be the absolute least of anybody's concerns. Sharia Law will look like the Haight-Ashbury district circa 1966 compared to what is coming...

[jmdrake]

Then let someone bring a case and try to stop it.
Meanwhile, those brats are going to be exposed to some TRUTH.

Moreover, those laws are fungible, they were added much later. States still have the right to endorse religions.

You realize these aren't simply "laws" right? They are articles of the Oklahoma constitution. So that state doesn't have the right to violate its own constitution without amending it. And why are you so gung ho for a state to endorse religions anyway? And is the only way to expose children to "truth" this way? As I already pointed out, if one really wanted a "history of law" class it would be perfectly fine to including the 10 commandments along with law and documents that predates them (The Hammurabi code and the Ma'at laws), and laws that postdates them (Magna Charter, Constitution, Declaration of Independence etc).

[jmdrake]

This is completely missing the point. The argument you are making here was the status quo circa 1990. The claim of the weirdosexual crypto-Marxist culture-warriors was that, if we allow them to exist in peace (aka don't "impose our religion" on them), they will just be good neighbors like anybody else. Except for two men washing cars on Saturday on the driveway, we wouldn't even know that they're "gay". They're just like anybody else. So, we are supposed to allow the public space to become a kind of "neutral zone" where "religion is a purely private matter". We don't need to have street-preachers and awkward conversations with the fundamentalist guy at the mall handing out Chick tracts and denouncing sexual sins, among other things. We just need everybody to respect the civil law, and be whatever religion, belief or sexual practice that they want to be, behind closed-doors either at home or at their place of worship, or both. That was "the deal", the unwritten deal we were supposedly all being signed up for by the cultural Marxists in the post-60s cultural revolution. What we actually got was adults using the State as an instrument to butcher children in compliance with "Woke" ideology, whatever the hell that's supposed to be. So, there has been an absolute betrayal of this unwritten cultural, white-flag parley with the cultural Marxists that was supposed to usher in a new era of "tolerance". Instead of tolerance, we got kids being surgically altered for life, and that by force of law.

When you poke the Leviathan with a sharp stick, you are a fool if you think you will not be whiplashed with the Leviathan's tail. And that is precisely what is happening right now. These people are playing with fire they cannot even begin to comprehend. It's like entering a fight ring with Conor McGregor, agreeing to only use legal moves, and then trying to use no-holds barred moves on him during the fight. The only reason you weren't being dismantled instantly was the earlier agreement to play fair. If you want to change the fight rules in the middle of it and just have a street fight, well that's a whole other ball-game. We can do that, too, and we are infinitely better at it. And I assure you, you will never see the knockout blow coming. The idea that you can butcher children without baiting the literal, apocalyptic wrath of God is certifiable insanity. When the flames begin, religious fairness in government classrooms will be the absolute least of anybody's concerns. Sharia Law will look like the Haight-Ashbury district circa 1966 compared to what is coming...

Good point. Going with your Conor McGregor analogy, it's like when he went beyond the unwritten rules of civility in the UFC, throwing a hand truck through a bus window and talking about Khabid's father, country, faith etc, and then in the right tried to tell Khabib "This is only business." Khabib clearly didn't see it that way, and then when the fight was "over" it wasn't "over." The danger with the Leviathan's tail is that it can knock over unintended targets. There seriously needs to be an adult conversation about these cultural and, dare I say, "pseudo science" issues but that's not happening.

[jmdrake]

That's a broad category of religion, and it also includes Juadism.
It's not what the people who wrote the Constitution of the state intended.
Curriculum is up to the schools or the state that runs them as long as the state has schools (which they need to get out of their constitution) and as long as no specific religion's teachings are used to interpret whatever is taught as history.

Judiasm, as practiced today, is incompatible with Christianity and includes texts like the Talmud which teach that Mary was a whore and Jesus was a magician and a charlatan. One of the biggest problems with our foreign policy is the myth of "Judeo-Christianity." The "small hat club" and @Anti Federalist points out.

You teach that this is what our ancestors believed.
You use the version they used.
And you don't teach that it is true or false.

Parents and activists (the left will be very motivated) will report if the teaching is exceeding historical boundaries.

What our ancestors believed? Some of your ancestors most likely believed in Thor or Zeus or Jupiter or fill-in-the-blank. Trying to pretend that teaching about the Bible and the 10 commandments without putting it in historical context is somehow not teaching religion is itself an insult to the Bible, the 10 commandments and Christianity. If it's a "history class" the put everything in its actual historical context. If that isn't done it's just a religion class dishonestly masquerading as a history class.

[Sonny Tufts]

This is completely missing the point.

It's precisely the point. Christian church attendance is down, so the religious right-wing pearl clutchers want the government's help. The rest of your screed has nothig to do with the issue.

So, we are supposed to allow the public space to become a kind of "neutral zone" where "religion is a purely private matter". We don't need to have street-preachers and awkward conversations with the fundamentalist guy at the mall handing out Chick tracts and denouncing sexual sins, among other things.

Who said anything about eliminating street preachers? Good grief, if the law tolerates the cretins at the Westboro Baptist Church (which it does) you have nothing to fear about being silenced. Just do it without governmental assistance and taxpayers' money.

[ClaytonB]

Good point. Going with your Conor McGregor analogy, it's like when he went beyond the unwritten rules of civility in the UFC, throwing a hand truck through a bus window and talking about Khabid's father, country, faith etc, and then in the right tried to tell Khabib "This is only business." Khabib clearly didn't see it that way, and then when the fight was "over" it wasn't "over." The danger with the Leviathan's tail is that it can knock over unintended targets. There seriously needs to be an adult conversation about these cultural and, dare I say, "pseudo science" issues but that's not happening.

Exactly. In America, there was a "cultural truce" from, say, the late-60's through the circa-2010s. The basic outline of this cultural truce was that everybody is obligated by law to follow the civil requirements of the law and if we just stick to that, we don't need intrusive, religious laws that affect how people live in their home, or how they choose to dress, or speak, and so on. But there was never any actual truce. And since there was never any actual truce to begin with, so be it. Let there be absolute war. Bring the Apocalypse...

PS: The analogy with McGregor was just because he is a skilled fighter, I'm not making some kind of moral-equivalence metaphor.

[Snowball]

You realize these aren't simply "laws" right? They are articles of the Oklahoma constitution. So that state doesn't have the right to violate its own constitution without amending it. And why are you so gung ho for a state to endorse religions anyway? And is the only way to expose children to "truth" this way? As I already pointed out, if one really wanted a "history of law" class it would be perfectly fine to including the 10 commandments along with law and documents that predates them (The Hammurabi code and the Ma'at laws), and laws that postdates them (Magna Charter, Constitution, Declaration of Independence etc).

Yes, they amended the state constitution in 1978 that way. It's a law. Laws are subject to juridical interpretation.

Since you feel so strongly about this, perhaps you should donate to the ACLU and sue the State of Oklahoma.

[ClaytonB]

It's precisely the point. Christian church attendance is down, so the religious right-wing pearl clutchers want the government's help. The rest of your screed has nothig to do with the issue.

Who said anything about eliminating street preachers? Good grief, if the law tolerates the cretins at the Westboro Baptist Church (which it does) you have nothing to fear about being silenced. Just do it without governmental assistance and taxpayers' money.

I will simply reiterate: the cultural-Marxists will never see the knockout-blow coming. They've picked the wrong fight with the wrong beast. The consequences for them will be so extreme that it will be literally unbearable to watch. That's not my opinion, that's prophecy, Rev. 18:9ff.

[jmdrake]

Yes, they amended the state constitution in 1978 that way. It's a law. Laws are subject to juridical interpretation.

Since you feel so strongly about this, perhaps you should donate to the ACLU and sue the State of Oklahoma.

You didn't answer my question. Why are you so gung ho for a state to endorse religions anyway?

[Sonny Tufts]

If it's a "history class" the put everything in its actual historical context. If that isn't done it's just a religion class dishonestly masquerading as a history class.

I doubt very much that the Oklahoma official who started this mess intends for the instruction to include how the Bible was used to justify slavery or that Massachusetts made blasphemy a capital offense (emulating Leviticus 24:16).

[Snowball]

You didn't answer my question. Why are you so gung ho for a state to endorse religions anyway?

I did.
An amendment to the Oklahoma constitution is a law. It was passed by State Question No. 526, Legislative Referendum No. 220 in 1978.
It is YOUR belief that the Oklahoma school system is violating their state constitution, so call the ACLU or something.
Don't know what to tell you. It's your opinion.

[jmdrake]

I will simply reiterate: the cultural-Marxists will never see the knockout-blow coming. They've picked the wrong fight with the wrong beast. The consequences for them will be so extreme that it will be literally unbearable to watch. That's not my opinion, that's prophecy, Rev. 18:9ff.

And who is the harlot of Babylon in Revelation 18:9?

See Revelation 17:4-12

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.