The Derplahomans are losing their minds over this 10 Commandments thing…
1:54 PM EDT on July 7, 2015
It's been over a week since the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the 10 Commandments Monument at the Capitol violates the state constitution. The ruling has rallied and united Derplahomans across the state in ways not seen since the great Hobby Lobby wall cross ornament sale of 2007.
According to KOCO, one lady in Atoka designed a t-shirt to protest the court's very correct ruling:
Although I doubt he'd ever wear it to church, the gym or even a flea market, I'm sure God loves that shirt. I'm sure he'd like it even more if the lady who made it would have hired a competent graphic designer, or as an astute commenter pointed out, known that the monument was at the Capitol... not the courthouse.
Profiting off the court's "controversial" decision by selling ugly t-shirts designed in Word is one thing. Now, our Republican theocrats are trying to change the state constitution (as I predicted) to keep the monument on the Capitol steps.
Check out the crazy shit State Rep. John Paul Jordan, who looks like the GOP version of a rubber Halloween mask, had to say in a news release:
State Rep. John Paul Jordan today filed a constitutional amendment for the 2016 legislative session to remove the language that formed the basis for the Ten Commandments monument ruling....“After reviewing the Supreme Court’s Ten Commandments ruling , it is clear that we have a toxic provision in our state Constitution,” said Jordan, R-Yukon. “It was written with discrimination in mind, and like a malignant tumor, needs to be removed completely.
Yeah, okay.... but what if it's one of those inoperable malignant tumors? You now, like the one growing inside the logic and reason section of Rep. Jordan's brain?
Seriously, how the fuck do you compare a constitutional amendment that essentially prevents the state from endorsing one religion over another to a malignant tumor? What's next? Comparing freedom of press to explosive diarrhea? That's almost as irrational as using a fallacious slippery slope argument to try to scare people into agreeing with you...
I am under the opinion the court’s strict interpretation of the language of Article 2, Section V could have far reaching implications. It could possibly lead to the Native American artwork in the Capitol and State Supreme Court buildings being removed as much of it is religious in nature.
Actually, it wouldn't do that all. In 2014, some Derplahoman minister sued the state in an effort to get The Guardian statue removed from our license plates claiming "it conveys a religious message contrary to his Christian beliefs." The case was dismissed by a federal judge, and the same thing would happen if the Derplahoman Brigade tried to get Native American artwork removed from the public buildings (which they wouldn't do because they Chickasaws would stop supporting their campaigns).
The ridiculous slippery slope argument continues...
In addition, it could lead to individuals on state funded insurance programs being unable to receive medical care as a large portion of hospitals in Oklahoma are supported by a religious affiliation.”
Yeah, that's not going to happen either. It's like comparing apples to the rock inside a Derplahomans skull. There's no correlation between the two things. If the Satanic Temple wanted to open an accredited, non-profit hospital in Oklahoma and accept Medicaid funding, they'd be free to do so as long as they met certain qualifications and abided by state and federal laws. The government doesn't play favorites so it's fine. However, the Satanic Temple can't put up a religious monument on our capitol grounds. Only Evangelical christians can do that.
Taken to an extreme it could even lead to churches, synagogues, mosques and other buildings used for religious purposes being unable to receive police and fire protection as they would be directly or indirectly benefitting from public monies.
Speaking of taking things to an extreme, can those guys who punched those annoying Del City teenagers find Rep. Jordan and give him a wedgie? There's literally no precedent to this idea. He's just lying to induce fear and paranoia in Derplahoma, which ironically enough, violates one of those 10 Commandments he's so in love with...
“Ten Commandment monuments are commonplace in the United States and a widely understood historic basis for our system of law,” Jordan said. “It is important that we do not let the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision end this tradition in Oklahoma. I want to preserve the right of Oklahomans to honor the Ten Commandments by removing the portion of the Oklahoma Constitution that says a Ten Commandments monument can’t exist on state property.”
Question: How exactly are the 10 Commandments a "widely understood historic basis for our system of law?"
First of all, are we really considering a moral code dictated to an Egyptian prince high atop a mountain in the Middle East by a burning bush 8,000 years ago as recorded history? That sounds more like mythology if you ask me.
Also, maybe I'm not reading it correctly, but the very first commandment is "You shall have no other gods before Me." That's seems to totally contradict the very first amendment in the US Constitution, which is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It doesn't take a rocket scientist or Derplahoman legislator to know that our founding fathers were trying to distance themselves from the 10 Commandments, not use them as a foundation for our own laws.
Of course, those are logical arguments to an irrational, emotional debate. Instead of looking like a fool and trying to scare people with his nonsensical slippery slope argument, Rep. John Paul Jordan should be direct and honest. He should say that the religious beliefs of the majority should be forced upon those in the minority. He should print that on an ugly T-shirt. He'd get rich.
Stay in touch
Sign up for our free newsletter