Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, said the monument recognized the historical importance of the Ten Commandments and had "nothing to do with religious viewpoints."
Freshman Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, introduced the bill, proposing installation of a 3-by-6-foot monument on the Capitol grounds similar to a granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol in Austin. Ritze said his family would pay for the estimated $10,000 cost of the project.
[Sen. Jim Wilson, D-Tahlequah] said the Texas monument was 40-years-old and was "an aberration." The Ten Commandments structure in Texas is in a monument park.
The Oklahoma Constitution is even more stringent that the U.S. Constitution in banning religious monuments from public property, Wilson said. "We're going to spend a lot of money (defending a lawsuit challenging the measure) and we're going to lose," he said. He said Oklahoma could not defend the monument and reject other monuments with a religious theme that might be sought by Muslims or members of other religions.
Source: Tulsa World (emphasis added)
The Ten Commandments have "nothing to do with religious viewpoints?" I can't decide whether that's incredibly ignorant, downright stupid, or outrageously deceitful (though I'm confident there aren't any options beyond those). If the Ten Commandments really have nothing whatsoever to do with any religious viewpoints, then the government might as well say the same about a motto like "Christ is Your Savior" so they can promote that idea a well.
[Sen. Randy Brogdon] said lawmakers would be erecting the Ten Commandments monument to recognize the historical basis for "our rule of law" and nothing else.
Some senators wondered about what language would be used on the monument, saying the wording of the Ten Commandments varies in different Bible versions.
"Probably an Oklahoma version, I imagine. Something that would suit us," Brogdon said.
One senator suggested the Ten Commandments would then read "You-all shall not kill." Another said it would be "y'all shall not kill."
I might have said that Brogdon couldn't get much worse than his first comment above, but then he had to go and say this latter bit and blow everything else out of the water. At least other senators recognized the absolute absurdity of what Randy Brogdon was saying and ridiculed it — his is a position that practically cries out for such treatment. It really doesn't deserve better.
However, I'd like to think that readers here might be able to come up with some better Oklahoma Commandments! So what do you think Oklahoma should put on their state version of the Ten Commandments?
“Y’all shalt not be messin’ witcher neighbors wife” And it’s broken most days so it’s perfect!
The ten most important words ever uttered in the history of man and he/she ran out of so much steam that the best they could up with for number 10 was not to covet your neighbors farm animals and servants?
A true monument to how the Ten Commandments have influenced western law should include the exceptions or qualifications to each one, shouldn’t it?
You shall have no other gods before me: Except the other members of the Trinity for most Christians.
You shall not make for yourself an idol whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: except as long as you don’t call it an idol it is perfectly ok to make things in the image of any of these and even honor them (just look at all the monuments in this country — even religious monuments).
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God: Except that this only applies to other people, since each person defines “wrongful” use differently.
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy: Except for the majority of Christians who prefer to keep a different day holy (Sunday).
Honor your father and mother: Unless of course their religious views are different than yours and you follow Jesus’ instructions to divide families.
You shall not kill: except for sinners, enemy combatants, criminals, animals, etc. (heck, even your own children if God tells you to do so — as he did according to the Bible).
You shall not commit adultery: Unless you are a man and the lord commands you to rape foreign women as he did in the Bible many times.
You shall not steal: except of course from sinners, enemy combatants, natives whose land you want, — heck just about anyone who does not belong to your church, and even that is ok some of the time.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor: Unless it is for the greater good, of course. It is always ok to lie for God.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, farm animals, or anything that belongs to your neighbor: Unless the neighbors are foreigners, sinners, etc. or you are a capitalist!
Perfect example of the ignorance of politicians today. Anyone who has ever lived in the south will tell you that “Y’all” is singular. the Plural of “Y’all” is “All Y’all”.
So it should read “All Y’all t’aint be covetin’ yer neighbors farm animals, y’hear?”
Interesting fauxrs – I live in southwest Virginia (never visited Oklahoma) and we use “y’all” as plural. We might ask two people, “What are y’all doin’ tonight?”, but if it’s one person it would be “What are you doin’ tonight…” You do still hear “All y’all” a lot too, but that’s usually for a large group.
My personal favorite “local” saying – I’m nervous as a long tailed cat in a room fulla rockin’ chairs. =)
Eric (4tunate1), that list was hilarious – but you forgot an integral part of modern America’s “You shall not commit adultery: -
unless your sex life is in a rut, or boring, or you’re just sick of the same-old same-old.“
Oh yeah, as for the topic – well, she’s not from Oklahoma, but a videotape-monument of the Food Network’s Paula Deen cheerily saying “Oh, just be good y’all!” would be awesome.
Austin wrote:
The Ten Commandments have “nothing to do with religious viewpoints?” I’m can’t decide whether that’s incredibly ignorant, downright stupid, or outrageously deceitful (though I’m confident there aren’t any options beyond those).
Although the parenthetical statement puzzles me, I seriously would add the option: “selectively insane”.
Brogdon is a politician of the worst nature. He uses words to drum up votes. As far as we can tell in Tulsa he is the most dangerous type of politician, the one who has no direction only rhetoric. Follow the money with Brogdon that is where you will find his god.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the opinions expressed by others in response to Mr. Cline’s Blog. I was even more impressed with the paraphrasing of scripture provided by the theologian, Eric. I appreciate a country that allows our individual views be expressed and heard. What a far cry we have come since the witch hanging days of yesteryear. Wait a minute …what is that? Christians are not allowed to speak their uneducated, close-minded, judgmental opinions? Hold the phone…we are not allowed to display moral ideas or quotes. What is this? The Lemon law enforces and holds up the 14th amendment and the ambiguous Jeffersonian influences. What was I thinking? Oh, that’s right. As Oklahoma Senator Judy McIntyre states we are the “uneducated people” who “do not understand anything other than wedge issues like this. If it’s not God, if it’s not gays, it it’s not guns, they (we) do not care” who are getting played. Guess I will have to quit praying, loving, provide for the needy, feed the homeless and the like because these Christian ideals along with others are so damning.
good blog entry.
would be more poignant if Austin Cline would have posted the sentence as “I can’t decide whether that’s incredibly ignorant, downright stupid, or outrageously deceitful” rather than the “I’m can’t decide whether that’s incredibly ignorant, downright stupid, or outrageously deceitful” he used.
nonetheless, thanks for the post, we okies need more support like this.
While I’m seeing this for the first time over a year later, I had to respond. Perhaps it will resonate with someone else even further down the line.
Wow, Lucy. Were you reading from the Christian Over-Reactionary Script for that response?
“What a far cry we have come since the witch hanging days of yesteryear.”
True. Now pagans and those more than casually acquainted with the concept of herbal remedies are much more accepted. Atheists, on the other hand…especially where it might intrude on Christianity’s traditional, if unconstitutional, privilege…
“Christians are not allowed to speak their uneducated, close-minded, judgmental opinions?”
Why yes, Lucy. They are…still. In public even! If you look at that pesky little document our government is founded on though, you’ll find that while Joe Q. Public can shout it from the street corner (and I’ve actually seen that unbelievably often in metropolitan areas of Kentucky that I’ve been in), our government is legally bound to not endorse Christianity, or any other religion.
Even when it tries to slide in the back way (Wait. That might be Catholicism. Sorry.) or is promoted by our fine, upstanding, “Christian” elected officials, governmental endorsement of any particular religion is against Constitutional law.
Our officials all seem to fall under that heading when they’re running for office, and I believe I remember it becoming an arguing point for whether or not a candidate was worthy of election a time or two. Never mind how they act afterward… at least until it gets close to re-election time. The piety goes on easier than their suits.
“Guess I will have to quit praying, loving, provide for the needy, feed the homeless and the like because these Christian ideals along with others are so damning.”
While I think that anyone with a 3rd grade education, and therefore some exposure to some world history, could probably argue that charity has been demonstrated by people predating any exposure to Christianity (and in cases, what we would consider civilization itself!), and that therefore the concept is not indigenous only to Christianity, caring for others certainly isn’t damning.
Maybe one fine day you’ll even figure out that altruism doesn’t require a religion at all. I hesitate to suppose that you might even find out that it works even better without pious proselytization and ‘carrot and stick’ tactics, because that might just be too far out for Christianity collectively to grasp, and therefore the very concept might be banned to it’s sheeple.
Perhaps your indirect assertion that only Christians demonstrate that capacity is, but that’s another issue.
As to Senator McIntyre’s statement, perhaps it should be more accurately rephrased to reflect the Christian position, like so:
If its gays, if it’s guns, if it’s anything we can use as a wedge to get God in, we damn it and we do care!