• Dan Dredger wrote a new post, Oklahomans should vote yes on SQ 790 3 years, 8 months ago

    By The Oklahoman Editorial Board

    AMONG the proposals Oklahomans will consider in November is State Question 790, which would repeal Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. That provision declares, […]

    • The section talks about public funding of religious activities, not the participation of religious folk in politics. The argument in the piece makes no sense to me.

    • It fuels abusive lawsuits targeting programs that are perfectly legal
      under the U.S. Constitution.

      Such as school funding perhaps? …any other suggestions?

    • Geoff 21 #3
      Oct 26, 2016 at 3:25 pm

      It fuels abusive lawsuits targeting programs that are perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution.

      I think this is an example of theist wish-thinking “interpretation” of the constitution! – of the “It can’t mean restricting public spending on MY wonderful religion”, type!

      (There are references to the stone with the ten commandments on public property)

    • Americans United for the separation of Church and State website : Oct 25, 2016 includes this comment.

      Some supporters of SQ 790 say it will allow the state to return a Ten
      Commandments monument to the state capitol. They are upset that the
      Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the monument violated Article 2
      Section 5 and want to eliminate that obstacle. I would argue that
      putting the Ten Commandments up at the state remains a bad idea – the
      state shouldn’t endorse a religious creed. Nonetheless, removing the
      no-aid clause from their state constitution won’t solve the problem.
      Any attempt to return the Ten Commandments monument to the state
      capitol would be immediately challenged in federal court and would
      still likely be found to violate the U.S. Constitution. And
      Oklahomans, of course, will have to once again foot that bill.

      I would like to know what the hell put this plug for theocracy is doing on this site!!

    • nemo #5
      Oct 26, 2016 at 10:02 pm

      I would like to know what the hell put this plug for theocracy is doing on this site!!

      Articles are put on RDFS for critical analysis and comment.

      As a site promoting reason, there are plenty of comments which point out and illustrate the irrationality of theocratic thinking.

      Posting an article or quotation, does not imply endorsement!

    • It may be that I have overreacted here. Thinking further the problem
      seems to be not the article itself, but the inaptness of the heading.

      “Oklahomans should vote yes on SQ 790” is clearly not a message RDFRS
      should be sending. On the other hand with a heading such as “Oklahoma may
      vote to change constitution, reinstate Ten Commandments monument” the
      item would be very appropriate.

      So why is that the heading is as it is? My initial reaction to it was
      to take it to be a hack of the site by nefarious religionists, which
      I think is a quite logical reaction which any viewer of the site might
      have. I still think it possibly is a hack.

      I shall contact the moderators and ask them to investigate this, and
      perhaps amend the heading. Even if it is not a hack, it is still making
      RDFRS look silly.

      • Nemo, the headlines of every article on this site are the original ones taken from the original articles – we have no legal rights to republish articles under a different name. Published articles belong to the author/publisher, and only they have the right to make alterations to them. The foundation (not the moderators, as it happens, but that’s irrelevant here) posts articles for discussion only: a whole range of articles, some of which it may agree with, some of which it doesn’t. The object of the exercise is rational discussion of the ideas expressed in them, not just the sharing of articles reflecting the foundation’s views.

        If you disagree with the linked article, please feel free to express your views about that here. That is one of the main purposes of the website. But the name of the article has been retained entirely in keeping with foundation policy and copyright law, and there’s no point railing against that as it’s not going to change!

        The mods

    • O.K. let us consider the matter closed.

      I am quite aware of copyright law was not suggesting any infringement of it. I was making the assumption
      that the heading provided was separate from the article and was there to indicate the relevance of the
      article to the RDFRS site, and was not an element of the article.

      Clearly I was wrong. I apologize.

    • Can I just borrow bonnie’s link to recommend the recent movie, The Witch.

      This is a wonderful chilling account of how a terrifyingly marginal existence defended against by religion rather than reason manufactures entirely destructive forces.

      I’m afraid I am not a fan of the horror genre (sorry Clive) except where it reveals truths about our psyche, from whence all horrors come, from Repulsion to the Babadook.

    • Cairsley #12
      Oct 29, 2016 at 3:13 am

      So, yes, one may well be able to point out certain “black legends”

      As with “Saint Mother Teresa”, the Catholic Church is well known for white-washing “Black Legends”!

    • Alright Bonnie, you fueled my memory “It is to laugh”?