“Meh” Monument Returns

Meh Monument
News Quote: “A new Ten Commandments Monument has been installed at the Oklahoma State Capitol Thursday morning.” What a waste of money that could have been used to do something actually helpful.

The people responsible for that monument’s existence insist that the monument serves a secular purpose, as if anyone actually believes that. Sure, those people claim that the Decalogue of Exodus 20 is the basis of western laws, but that claim is refuted by law professor Marci Hamilton in her FindLaw.com article titled “The Ten Commandments and American Law: Why Some Christians’ Claims to Legal Hegemony Are Not Consistent with the Historical Record”. The claim is also refuted in the SCOTUS ruling in the case of McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky.

Nah, that aforementioned monument is just a giant phylactery created for the benefit of modern-day Gentile Pharisees. Everything they do is done for men to see.*

Supporters of the monument are just fooling themselves if they believe that the monument will influence people to think a certain way. More likely, visitors at the Oklahoma Capitol will see the monument and do their “Lisa Simpson” impersonation.

Lisa Simpson - Meh

* Matthew 23:5 (NIV)

Clueless: Obama to Fight Against 'Violent Extremism,' Not Islamic Terror
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    I don’t think that it should be in this location. Of course that makes me a part of the “War on Christianity”. Why? Because many devout Christians believe we are not a nation of Christians, but a Christian nation and they are in favor of little reminders such as this being in court houses, government buildings and even schools.

    Law abiding, except in cases where they don’t like the law. Separation of church is one of those tenets.

    • Retired military

      Liberals love to point at the law except when they don’t like what it says.
      Like Illegal immigration, IRS targeting private citizens for political purposes, preferred stockholders getting their money in a bankruptcy and a whole host of others which Obama has thrown the rule of law out the window on.

    • jim_m

      The 1st amendment is about establishment of religion, meaning that it prohibits the establishment of an official state religion, not that religious expression or ideas are banned from the political sphere. While you and other leftists want religion banned from the public sphere (except for islam because you are afraid they will cut your head off) that was never the intent or purpose of the 1st amendment.

    • LiberalNightmare

      I keep reading thru the constitution looking for the “separation of church and state” amendment. So far no luck.

      Maybe you can us tell where that particular tenet is inscribed?

      • arcman46

        Separation of Church and State was not in the Constitution, but was first prescribed by Jefferson in a letter to the Danberry Baptists. The First Amendment was about “Establishment of Religion”. The Founders did not want the Country to have an established religion, such as the Anglicans in England. It was never intended to be used as a tool to keep religion as influencing government, rather government from getting involved in religion.

  • Tanuki Man

    Given the wretchedness of most “public art,” this monument seems better than most.

  • jim_m

    What a waste of money that could have been used to do something actually helpful.

    The monument was placed on the north side of the State Capitol in 2012. It was paid for by Rep. Mike Ritze with his own money. So you are presuming to dictate to private citizens whet the best use of their money is?? Screw you David. Stop being a putz and let people live their lives the way they want to.

    Matt 5:15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

    • Rounds

      Exactly. the “waste of money” was caused by busybodys suing to remove something causing no-one any harm. Maybe they should have thought about using THAT money for a better purpose.

  • Vagabond661

    Do we still place our hand on a Bible in a court of law? Just asking…

    • JWH

      Depends on the particular court. I’ve seen courts in my area (around DC) forgo the Bible and simply ask the person to “swear or affirm” that they will tell the truth.

      • Vagabond661

        That’s why I asked. I have not been in a court in ages. However, if that custom is still used, i don’t see the problem with erecting this monument. It seems I remember the 10 commandments are posted or depicted on other government buildings.

        • JWH

          It depends on the region, really. IIRC, in areas with more religious diversity, they’re less likely to ask you to swear on the Bible. If I had my druthers, we’d keep the Bible out of it, period, as I think it might lead juries to make assumptions about a witness based on his religiosity.

  • LiberalNightmare

    So which would you prefer?
    A Lisa Simpson “meh” reaction, or a Charlie Hebdo reaction?

    Another stunningly obvious example of how much safer it is to criticize Christianity then some other religions that will be left un-named so that my head remains attached to my body.

  • How was it a “waste of money”? No public money was spent.

    • jim_m

      1) because it costs the government to give you a tax cut, all money is public money

      2) it’s a waste of money because certain people disagree with the sentiment and believe that this sort of expression should be suppressed as illegal.

  • Wild_Willie

    I am not sure how to take this post. I am almost sure it is ‘tongue in cheek’.
    Liberals love the first amendments ‘seperation of church and state’ which is just an interpretation. But absolutely deny the 2nd amendment meaning what it means.
    I say put as many reminders of good behavior in the public areas as will fit. Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. It can only help. ww

    • Paul Hooson

      “Tongue in cheek” is good, but I personally like “tongue in chick” better…

  • jim_m

    So David, according to you it is wrong for people to publicly display their religious beliefs because they are boasting of their piety. Yet by posting this topic you are effectively boasting of your piety by claiming that you don’t boast of your piety.

    Sort of a hypocrisy catch 22.

  • Paul Hooson

    I personally feel very bad that these people in Oklahoma don’t put a big menorah display up year round. I feel like my Jewishness is being overlooked and slighted by them. That’s not right…

    • jim_m

      Go right ahead. Anytime you want to fork out your own cash I am sure that you can make your case.

      However, last time I checked Abraham was still considered a Jew so you are already represented. (kind of makes me wonder how Jewish you really are if you don’t know that.)

      • Paul Hooson

        My comment is “tongue in cheek” as well as David Robertson’s column is here. – Actually, it was Moses who first claimed to receive the first copy of The Ten Commandments from God, then supposedly destroyed them out of anger, so supposedly made a second set himself.

        • jim_m

          Yes, thanks for that correction – multitasking is not conducive to accuracy or clear thinking.

          However, I do not think that David is being tongue in cheek here.

          • Paul Hooson

            I do much multitasking as well my friend. I often write something quick and light to unwind from more serious and nervous matters here at hand.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Cut from the article
    snip –
    Back in October, 2014, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol said 29-year-old Michael Tate Reed Jr. from Roland drove his vehicle into the original Ten Commandments Monument, smashing it to pieces.

    10/24/2014 Related Story: OHP Identifies Man Accused Of Running Over Ten Commandments Monument

    According to authorities, Reed admitted that he has been diagnosed with Bipolar and was off his medication. He also told authorities that he was a Satanist.
    snip –

    Oddly enough, Dave has no issues with Mr Reed expressing his religion on Govt property.

  • Mjolnir

    Based on the Constitution as written and as understood by its authors, there is nothing therein which would preclude this monument being placed at that location. Just because the establishment clause has been misused and abused to attack all religion in the public square does not mean that was its intent.
    If people wish to pay money to erect such monuments, that is their business. It harms no one.

    • WHO’S THE BUSTER

      I think it is at the State Capitol, not the “public square”.

      Where is this public square you refer to?

      • jim_m

        It’s a metaphor dumbass

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          Yeah, I think my comment was clearly tongue in cheek, but “dumbass”? Perhaps not clear enough.

          Note to self, do not deviate from the literal as this is all very serious business. Oh, and on this website, name calling is part of the rhetoric.

          Got it.