10 Commandments statue must be removed from OK State Capitol

[Borgholio]

http://www.koco.com/news/10-commandment ... Type=Story

OKLAHOMA CITY —Oklahoma's Supreme Court says the Ten Commandments monument at the state Capitol must be removed because it indirectly benefits the Jewish and Christian faiths in violation of the state's constitution.

The court ruled Tuesday that the Oklahoma Constitution bans using public property to benefit a religion, and said the Ten Commandments are "obviously religious in nature."

Attorney General Scott Pruitt argued that the monument is nearly identical to a Texas monument that was found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Oklahoma justices said the local monument violates Oklahoma's constitution.

Private funds were used to erect the monument in 2012. Since then, others have asked for space, including a Nevada Hindu leader, animal rights advocates, the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and a group pushing for a Satan statue.

Gov. Mary Fallin's representatives said she is talking to Pruitt about the state's legal options about the statue's ordered removal. Pruitt's representatives said the attorney general's office will explore legal options after it is finished reviewing the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision.

Pruitt released this statement:

“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. Additionally, we are requesting a stay of the enforcement of the court’s order until the court can consider the petition for rehearing. Finally, if Article 2, Section 5 is going to be construed in such a manner by the court, it will be necessary to repeal it.”

[TheFeniX]

The court completely ignored the profound historical impact of the Ten Commandments on the foundation of Western law.

7 of the 10 commandments need not apply. You could make the case that adultery is a crime in some states, so 6 out of 10, but still a stupid law.

[Borgholio]

The ironic part is that by worshiping Saints and statues of Jesus, most Catholics are in violation of the "Graven Images" part of it.

[Silver Jedi]

"Finally, if Article 2, Section 5 is going to be construed in such a manner by the court, it will be necessary to repeal it.”

I've got to give them credit for honesty here (though not in the rest of their argument). If the courts won't let them use public land for religious purposes, they'll just repeal separation of church and state from their state's bill of rights!

Also not to start a theological debate, but this is technically incorrect:

The ironic part is that by worshiping Saints and statues of Jesus, most Catholics are in violation of the "Graven Images" part of it.

Catholics aren't worshiping statues. Worshiping at an altar is not the same as worshiping the altar itself.

[Elheru Aran]

Also not to start a theological debate, but this is technically incorrect:

The ironic part is that by worshiping Saints and statues of Jesus, most Catholics are in violation of the "Graven Images" part of it.

Catholics aren't worshiping statues. Worshiping at an altar is not the same as worshiping the altar itself.

Quite. Saints are venerated as intercessors between the petitioner and God; and in no way would a Catholic worship a statue. When they bow before an altar or a crucifix, they are paying homage and worshipping the Deity represented by these objects, not the object itself, which is patently absurd.

The same notion generally holds true with most religions which have 'graven images'-- they're quite aware that the object they pay homage to is not their deity in and of itself, but they worship by using the object as a focus or representation of the deity. It's only a few faiths which actually believe their deity is embodied in the graven image itself, IIRC, but I can't name any off the top of my head.

Anyway. I wonder if the Supreme Court would change its mind about the monuments thing. What was the rationale they gave on the Texas case?

[Metahive]

Catholics aren't worshiping statues. Worshiping at an altar is not the same as worshiping the altar itself.

Greeks didn't worship their Zeus and Athena statues either, neither did the Hindus worship the statues of Vishnu, just what they represented, and yet all of them are considered idolators. Anyone care to explain why Catholics get an exemption from the standard application of the word?

[Elheru Aran]

Catholics aren't worshiping statues. Worshiping at an altar is not the same as worshiping the altar itself.

Greeks didn't worship their Zeus and Athena statues either, neither did the Hindus worship the statues of Vishnu, just what they represented, and yet all of them are considered idolators. Anyone care to explain why Catholics get an exemption from the standard application of the word?

Because Judeo-Christian, I guess. That whole 'our God is really invisible so you can't worship him with a statue' bit. Mind you, it does come under debate quite a few times in the historical record-- see the whole inconoclasm thing in the first millennium. Even in the second, there were incidents like the Beeldenstorm, inspired by stringent Protestant rhetoric. So it's not the most settled issue among Christians. There are any number of non-Catholic Christians who do sincerely believe the Catholics are idolators, so you're not alone in asking that question.

[Ralin]

Catholics aren't worshiping statues. Worshiping at an altar is not the same as worshiping the altar itself.

Greeks didn't worship their Zeus and Athena statues either, neither did the Hindus worship the statues of Vishnu, just what they represented, and yet all of them are considered idolators. Anyone care to explain why Catholics get an exemption from the standard application of the word?

Because Catholics say it's different and they've been around for a long time, mostly. And there are a lot of them.

[Flagg]

Catholics aren't worshiping statues. Worshiping at an altar is not the same as worshiping the altar itself.

Greeks didn't worship their Zeus and Athena statues either, neither did the Hindus worship the statues of Vishnu, just what they represented, and yet all of them are considered idolators. Anyone care to explain why Catholics get an exemption from the standard application of the word?

Because there are too many in this country and IIRC, most "Christians" across the planet are Catholic. And they are totally idolaters and have been, and it's one of many reasons for the Protestant reformation. I was raised Catholic, so really hold no more animosity against them than any other Christian sect of Abrahamism. In fact aside from my Kindergarten teacher (I attended a Catholic Scool for Kindergarten) and her assistant who singled me out for abuse because my mom dared divorce her abusive husband who regularly beat and raped her and remained single afterwards, the best experiences I ever had in a religious setting were with a Catholic Nun who for some reason adored me and took time and effort to make me feel better about my situation overall. At this time I was attending a public school for first grade and had a great teacher.

I say this to illustrate that if anything, I would defend Catholocism, but they are blatant idolaters. Do I care on any kind of personal level? No. But when you walk into what is effectively a gilded palace with statues of The Mother of Christ and a giant crucifix with a statue of Christ on it behind the priest and everyone has prayer beads... It's idolatry. And that's not even getting into the whole Patron Saint thing.

[Channel72]

I think the difference is a bit subtle. Perhaps Thanas will correct me, but my understanding is that pagan worshippers (i.e. worshippers of Greek or Mesopotamian deities) actually believed to some extent that the physical statue itself had some kind of supernatural connection with the deity being worshipped. This is why, for example, worshippers would place offerings in front of an idol, such as food or jewelry. The offerings would later magically "disappear", thought to be consumed by the deity somehow. (In reality, the priests just probably took it or whatever.) I mean, when you read stuff like Homer it's pretty clear that the Greeks (or at least the Greeks of the archaic period) believed that to some extent the statues they worshipped were somehow "imbued" with the actual presence of a deity.

Catholics, on the other hand, seem to be more practical about it - believing that the various symbols and images are just that - symbols and images, which represent something they worship, but don't necessarily have any actual supernatural connection with God/Jesus etc. Although I admit the line certainly gets very blurred, especially as the Medieval mind was concerned (especially in regard to Holy relics which apparently were/are believed to have actual supernatural powers), or the sort of shit you see in places like South America where devout Catholics sometimes believe that statues of Mary have actual healing powers. Humans just aren't that good at subtlety, so it's easy for "this image represents God" to quickly transform into "this image has amazing God-powers."

Regardless, there's a really hilarious chapter in the Old Testament, Isaiah 44:12-20, which is basically sort of a "parody", or perhaps something of a reductio ad absurdum argument against pagan idol worship. It's one of my favorite Biblical passages because it reveals something of a comedic mind at work. It basically illustrates the absurdity of how some idiot pagan brings home a block of wood, takes out some tools and chips away until it looks kind of like a god, and then worships the stupid thing and asks it for favors. It's pretty hilarious.

Sigh... if only the Jews stuck to comedy instead of Monotheism - I mean like, more Seinfeld and less indiscriminate killing of Canaanites - we'd all be better off.

[Ralin]

Don't Christians also consider it idolatry to worship other gods period? Like, if I pray to Vishnu or whatever that's idolatry regardless of whether I have a Vishnu statue around when I do it?

[Borgholio]

Don't Christians also consider it idolatry to worship other gods period? Like, if I pray to Vishnu or whatever that's idolatry regardless of whether I have a Vishnu statue around when I do it?

No they just consider that to be worshipping false gods.

[Channel72]

Yes, but modern Christians have pretty much overloaded the word "idolatry" beyond all recognition. Especially among Evangelicals, the word "idolatry" is basically a stand-in for anything that distracts you from being a full-time fundy - whether it's money, sex, television, anything can be an idol if you consider it to be too important in your life to the extent that it distracts you from worshipping God. It's all part of the attempt to make the Bible relevant to a modern audience, since nobody these days is worshipping statues of Baal anymore.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It is important to remember that in a strict theological sense "idolatry" actually has a more specific definition than the more general usage of the term.

According to the Catholic Catechism:

Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. Man commits idolatry whenever he honours and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods, or demons (for example satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money etc.

Idolatry, at least in the Catholic tradition, does not refer specifically to worshiping an object, but worshiping ANY concept instead of God. Worshiping a "false god" would be considered a special case of idolatry. More generally, the prohibition of the use of images for worship is called aniconism.

There is no aniconism in the modern Christian tradition, but the prohibition of idolatry remains a central tenet. They are different theological concepts.

[Lord Revan]

Don't Christians also consider it idolatry to worship other gods period? Like, if I pray to Vishnu or whatever that's idolatry regardless of whether I have a Vishnu statue around when I do it?

no worshipping other gods is being an infidel.

[Elheru Aran]

Don't Christians also consider it idolatry to worship other gods period? Like, if I pray to Vishnu or whatever that's idolatry regardless of whether I have a Vishnu statue around when I do it?

no worshipping other gods is being an infidel.

'Infidel' is somewhat of a highly dated term. 'Unbeliever' is more normal, or 'person/follower of other faith', or simply 'non-Christian'. At least in American English; I imagine other languages may still use adaptions of older terms. To turn from Christianity to another faith is apostasy, but simply being of another faith in the first place merely makes one non-Christian in general terms. It's obviously not a major concern in the States, seeing as, at least among the white and most of the black and Hispanic populations, Christianity is a large background part of the culture to the point where most people are at least vaguely aware of the broad strokes of the faith.

[General Zod]

It is important to remember that in a strict theological sense "idolatry" actually has a more specific definition than the more general usage of the term.

According to the Catholic Catechism:

Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. Man commits idolatry whenever he honours and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods, or demons (for example satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money etc.

Idolatry, at least in the Catholic tradition, does not refer specifically to worshiping an object, but worshiping ANY concept instead of God. Worshiping a "false god" would be considered a special case of idolatry. More generally, the prohibition of the use of images for worship is called aniconism.

There is no aniconism in the modern Christian tradition, but the prohibition of idolatry remains a central tenet. They are different theological concepts.

Isn't idolatry one of the common Protestant complaints about Catholics?

[Thanas]

I think the difference is a bit subtle. Perhaps Thanas will correct me, but my understanding is that pagan worshippers (i.e. worshippers of Greek or Mesopotamian deities) actually believed to some extent that the physical statue itself had some kind of supernatural connection with the deity being worshipped. This is why, for example, worshippers would place offerings in front of an idol, such as food or jewelry. The offerings would later magically "disappear", thought to be consumed by the deity somehow. (In reality, the priests just probably took it or whatever.)

That is correct. A pagan temple without a depiction of the God is no temple, which is why Christian literature of the 5th centuries tends to overempathize the destruction of those or the saint struggling with demons while sleeping near the statue.

As to the offerings - Greeks believed that the smell was enough for the gods. This is how the poor were actually able to afford some kind of meat on a regular basis - you went to the temple worship and got a piece of the sacrificial animal or were invited to the cult feast.

Catholics, on the other hand, seem to be more practical about it - believing that the various symbols and images are just that - symbols and images, which represent something they worship, but don't necessarily have any actual supernatural connection with God/Jesus etc. Although I admit the line certainly gets very blurred, especially as the Medieval mind was concerned (especially in regard to Holy relics which apparently were/are believed to have actual supernatural powers), or the sort of shit you see in places like South America where devout Catholics sometimes believe that statues of Mary have actual healing powers. Humans just aren't that good at subtlety, so it's easy for "this image represents God" to quickly transform into "this image has amazing God-powers."

Early Christianity (read: Constantine's definition of what is Christian and damn those who disagree) is very similar to pagan cults anyway and definitely has diol worship. I mean, Constantine had his family members buried in Christian churches to have them worshipped like the Imperial cult (and this is indeed a variation of the Imperial cult) and he himself had his burial made so that he was the reincarnation of Jesus....

[Elheru Aran]

Isn't idolatry one of the common Protestant complaints about Catholics?

Depends on the Protestant. Most of the reasonable ones don't care. The more stringent Calvinist types (usually the crazy racist types too) will bring it up after a while. That particular fuss has largely declined, though. It's a bit more marked in the Orthodox church, but there's less of that in the US, and the American Orthodox churches tend to emphasize the whole iconography thing a little less than they do in Eurasia, so it doesn't come up as often.

[Raw Shark]

Graven images are not even mentioned in the Catholic Ten Commandments. I wasn't even aware that was a thing for some people until I was at least ten, because I grew up in a region where almost everybody is Roman Catholic. A lot of priceless artwork got smashed during and after the Protestant Reformation, but the Catholic church I was forced to attend as a child loved them up some graven images.

[Flagg]

I think the difference is a bit subtle. Perhaps Thanas will correct me, but my understanding is that pagan worshippers (i.e. worshippers of Greek or Mesopotamian deities) actually believed to some extent that the physical statue itself had some kind of supernatural connection with the deity being worshipped. This is why, for example, worshippers would place offerings in front of an idol, such as food or jewelry. The offerings would later magically "disappear", thought to be consumed by the deity somehow. (In reality, the priests just probably took it or whatever.)

That is correct. A pagan temple without a depiction of the God is no temple, which is why Christian literature of the 5th centuries tends to overempathize the destruction of those or the saint struggling with demons while sleeping near the statue.

As to the offerings - Greeks believed that the smell was enough for the gods. This is how the poor were actually able to afford some kind of meat on a regular basis - you went to the temple worship and got a piece of the sacrificial animal or were invited to the cult feast.

Catholics, on the other hand, seem to be more practical about it - believing that the various symbols and images are just that - symbols and images, which represent something they worship, but don't necessarily have any actual supernatural connection with God/Jesus etc. Although I admit the line certainly gets very blurred, especially as the Medieval mind was concerned (especially in regard to Holy relics which apparently were/are believed to have actual supernatural powers), or the sort of shit you see in places like South America where devout Catholics sometimes believe that statues of Mary have actual healing powers. Humans just aren't that good at subtlety, so it's easy for "this image represents God" to quickly transform into "this image has amazing God-powers."

Early Christianity (read: Constantine's definition of what is Christian and damn those who disagree) is very similar to pagan cults anyway and definitely has diol worship. I mean, Constantine had his family members buried in Christian churches to have them worshipped like the Imperial cult (and this is indeed a variation of the Imperial cult) and he himself had his burial made so that he was the reincarnation of Jesus....

Yeah, it's funny because if you get rid of some of the more... Extravagant Roman religious practices, you can see a lot of the same type of worship. Like Roman pagans had a demi-god for almost, if not, everything and they often carried some item with the demi-gods image on it, in their prayer beads, or on a necklace, something like that, while Catholics have a Patron Saint for just about everything and will often carry a picture or small item with a photograph or etching/ painting of the saint, in the prayer beads, or on a necklace, something like that. Plus the creepy corpse worship...

[TheFeniX]

The ironic part is that by worshiping Saints and statues of Jesus, most Catholics are in violation of the "Graven Images" part of it.

As people have pointed out, I don't know (or care) if that's true. But I agree with your sentiment.

My comment was more about the hilarity of thinking "don't lie, steal, cheat, or murder" is some kind of pillar we needed the commandments for when everyone else had figured that out well before some burning bush did. You could sum that shit up as "don't be an asshole." Also, that most of the commandments have nothing to do with justice and are about God needing some under-evolved monkey-men to constantly tell him how awesome he is.

[General Zod]

Graven images are not even mentioned in the Catholic Ten Commandments. I wasn't even aware that was a thing for some people until I was at least ten, because I grew up in a region where almost everybody is Roman Catholic. A lot of priceless artwork got smashed during and after the Protestant Reformation, but the Catholic church I was forced to attend as a child loved them up some graven images.

Rape and being a pedophile aren't in the ten commandments either.

[Metahive]

I think outside of the animists, pagan people usually didn't think their statues and other depictions of their deities contained bits and pieces of said deity. It's just that since a god can't just stand around in a temple all the time, they had to create effigies to direct their worship at instead.

The old Hebrews and Israelites however did think that their capital-G god dwelled in some form within the Tabernacle and the Temple. "House of God" was not meant metaphorically until the Romans smashed said house to pieces. I always found it weird even as a kid.

[Borgholio]

The old Hebrews and Israelites however did think that their capital-G god dwelled in some form within the Tabernacle and the Temple. "House of God" was not meant metaphorically until the Romans smashed said house to pieces. I always found it weird even as a kid.

That fits with the parts of Genesis where God is physically walking in Eden and both Adam and Eve successfully hide from him. He was not portrayed as an omnipotent omnipresent spirit originally.