10 Commandments removal prompts legislation to bring it back

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A court decision forcing the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from the statehouse grounds last year so angered Republican leaders in Oklahoma that several measures have been introduced in an effort to bring it back.

At least four resolutions seek a public vote on whether to amend the Oklahoma Constitution to remove the language that prohibits the use of public money or property from benefiting a religion.

Article II, Section 5, of the Constitution decrees that, “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.”

According to a Gayly story last August, state Rep. Donnie Condit (D-McAlester) reminded his legislative colleagues to “be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.” Striking Article II, Section 5 from the Constitution would indeed enable the Ten Commandments monument to remain right where it is, Condit acknowledged. It also would open the door to others who might want to erect a monument to, say, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Zoroastrianism, or even Satanism, Condit speculated.

Supporters of the resolutions say the monument's removal struck a nerve with Oklahomans who want to bring it back.

According to The Gayly, Attorney General Scott Pruitt released this statement on the ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court last year: “Quite simply, the Oklahoma Supreme Court got it wrong. The court completely ignored the profound historical impact of the Ten Commandments on the foundation of Western law. Furthermore, the court’s incorrect interpretation of Article 2, Section 5 contradicts previous rulings of the court. In response, my office will file a petition with the court for a rehearing in light of the broader implications of this ruling on other areas of state law. In the interim, enforcement of the court’s order cannot occur.”

But opponents like Ryan Kiesel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma say the monument is being used by politicians looking to score political points.

If the monument is returned, Kiesel vowed to challenge it again in federal court.

A portion of this story was contributed by Sean Murphy. Copyright 2016 The Associated Press.

The Gayly- 2/15/2016 @ 11:29 AM CST