Oklahoma Officials Tear Down Ten Commandments Under Shadow of Darkness
Late Monday night, under the cover of darkness and tight security, the State of Oklahoma surreptitiously ripped the Ten Commandments from its Capitol grounds. The clandestine extraction attracted national attention.
According to officials overseeing the operation, “We wanted it to be done as quickly and efficiently as possible, and doing it at night gave us the best opportunity to do that.” “The Highway Patrol was also very concerned that having it in the middle of the day could lead to having demonstrations of some kind.”
Was this an attempt to circumvent free speech of concerned citizens? Even so, I can’t help but appreciate the irony of the Ten Commandments’ removal occurring in the secret of darkness.
The Monument’s extraction follows months of controversy stirred up by the Oklahoma Supreme Court when this past summer, it discovered an innovative way to read the State Constitution and ordered the Monument banished. The State’s request for re-hearing was denied. As a result, beneath the moonlight, progressive secularist ideologues determined to whitewash God from our civic consciousness have achieved victory – for now.
As we previously reported, State Rep. Jon Echols, Vice-Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has vowed to offer and vigorously pursue legislation this coming legislative session placing the Monument’s fate in the hands of Oklahoma voters. Rep. Echols expressed his confidence that the people of Oklahoma will make clear that the Ten Commandments are welcome on their State Capitol grounds.
Rep. Echols told me, “This Nation and the great State of Oklahoma would be better off if people read the Ten Commandments more, not less. It’s common sense. After all, our laws were largely based on Hebrew law.” He explained, “Don’t murder; don’t steal; don’t lie. It’s just unbelievable to me the lengths to which some will go to pretend that God and His Law had no place in ours.“
Rep. Echols continued:
I’ve heard something else I want to address. Legal pundits suggest the possibility that a satanic monument would have to be allowed at the Capitol if the Ten Commandments remained. This is just false and merely an effort to scare the people of Oklahoma into submission to the Court’s edict. These pundits are either intentionally misleading the people or they haven’t taken the time to read recent, unambiguous and relevant U.S. Supreme Court decisions.”
One case to which Rep. Echols referred is Pleasant Grove v. Summum. The ACLJ successfully represented two Utah cities in the case, where the United States Supreme Court rejected a fringe “religious” group’s demand to place a monument to its Seven Aphorisms on municipal grounds. Among other reasons, Summum argued that because the government had allowed a privately funded Ten Commandments monument (virtually identical to the Oklahoma monument), it must allow theirs.
Without a single dissenting vote, the Supreme Court flatly rejected this argument – keeping the monument in place. The Court cited numerous First Amendment precedents for the proposition that “[a] government entity is entitled to say what it wishes, and to select the views that it wants to express.” According to the Court, the government may exercise this same freedom when it receives private assistance for the purpose of delivering a government-controlled message.
Put simply, Summum left no room for doubt: the Constitution doesn’t bar this type of government speech. In Oklahoma’s case, it appears undisputed that the Monument and the manner if which it came into being are essentially identical to the Monument the United States Supreme Court upheld in Texas in 2005.
The Supreme Court in Van Orden v. Perry allowed a Ten Commandments monument to remain in Texas over an Establishment Clause challenge. The majority opinion in Van Orden recited the Court’s jurisprudence:
It is true that religion has been closely identified with our history and government. The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself. It can be truly said, therefore, that today, as in the beginning, our national life reflects a religious people who, in the words of Madison, are earnestly praying, as in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his blessing.
And again:
We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.
As I warned following the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision that the State Constitution suddenly forbids the Ten Commandments Monument, courts in states with Blaine Amendments (or its substantive equivalent) might be persuaded to follow suit. The result? State courts essentially vetoing the First Amendment.
While the state constitutional provision at issue states that no public money or property shall ever be used for the “benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religions,” consider that this same State Constitution contains a Preamble beseeching the Judeo-Christian God for guidance. It reads:
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
As Rep. Echols points out, the Oklahoma Court’s novel application of Article 2, Section 5 (commonly known as the Blaine Amendment) would prohibit a monument to the State’s own Constitution. “This is utter nonsense,” he said. While Rep. Echols expressed respect for the Oklahoma Supreme Court, “The Court just got this one wrong, plain and simple.” We agree.
As Rep. Echols put it to me:
Don’t be fooled: it’s not just Ten Commandment Monuments at stake. The Court’s new revelation jeopardizes all kinds of religion-themed State speech. It’s time for the Blaine Amendment to go. The way it’s been interpreted simply does not reflect Oklahoma’s values.
All eyes will be on Oklahoma’s Legislature in 2016 when the next session begins. The ACLJ stands with Rep. Echols and his colleagues. We are planning to assist in drafting a Constitutional amendment in Oklahoma, which can serve as a national model, to protect the Ten Commandments and other landmarks across America.
It’s time to place the decision in the hands of Oklahoma’s citizens. And as I explained before, the 36 other states with Blaine Amendments are at risk and their state legislatures must take action as well.