Republican Party Chairman Randy Brogdon says the Oklahoma Supreme Court got it wrong when it ruled on the 10 Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds.
Wow. I just read the Brogdon article and he says the court was dishonest in their reading of the constitution saying the monument was not paid for with public money.
He then quotes what HE says that Section 2 Article 5 says: “They cited Article 2 Section 5 to render their opinion. It states: “No public money shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used…for the benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or support any priest, preacher, or minister.”
Is Brogdon just horribly mistaken or is he always this dishonest? In his quoting of the constitution, he completely left out, “or property.” Like it isn’t even there! But the court is dishonest? For the record S2A5 states: “No public money OR PROPERTY shall ever be appropriated…”
I’ve said before, I’m not happy about the decision, but I don’t blame the judges for their interpretation. Of course, they read the actual wording and not the redacted version that Brogdon based his column on.
Chairman Brogdon? Like the Ryan situation, do you just choose to see only what you WANT to see and ignore what’s truly there?
Vernon Woods, 05 July, 2015
Aside from Brogdon’s typo errors, he obviously selects certain wording from the Constitution when making his shallow arguments, and ignores the facts.
The Constitution in article 2, section 5, states:
‘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.’
He seems to ignore the reference to public property. Who paid for the monument is not relevant. And his flawed logic concerning his claim that no religious reference is implied by the Ten Commandments monuments is unbelievable and ridiculous.
I continue to be amazed by these pols who are yelling and screaming that SCOTUS disregarded the US Constitution last week (and I agree), while at the same time berating the OKSC for following the Constitution.
I detect the rancid stench of hypocrisy in the air.
Republican Party Chairman Randy Brogdon says the Oklahoma Supreme Court got it wrong when it ruled on the 10 Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds.
Wow. I just read the Brogdon article and he says the court was dishonest in their reading of the constitution saying the monument was not paid for with public money.
He then quotes what HE says that Section 2 Article 5 says: “They cited Article 2 Section 5 to render their opinion. It states: “No public money shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used…for the benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or support any priest, preacher, or minister.”
Is Brogdon just horribly mistaken or is he always this dishonest? In his quoting of the constitution, he completely left out, “or property.” Like it isn’t even there! But the court is dishonest? For the record S2A5 states: “No public money OR PROPERTY shall ever be appropriated…”
I’ve said before, I’m not happy about the decision, but I don’t blame the judges for their interpretation. Of course, they read the actual wording and not the redacted version that Brogdon based his column on.
Chairman Brogdon? Like the Ryan situation, do you just choose to see only what you WANT to see and ignore what’s truly there?
Aside from Brogdon’s typo errors, he obviously selects certain wording from the Constitution when making his shallow arguments, and ignores the facts.
The Constitution in article 2, section 5, states:
‘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.’
He seems to ignore the reference to public property. Who paid for the monument is not relevant. And his flawed logic concerning his claim that no religious reference is implied by the Ten Commandments monuments is unbelievable and ridiculous.
I continue to be amazed by these pols who are yelling and screaming that SCOTUS disregarded the US Constitution last week (and I agree), while at the same time berating the OKSC for following the Constitution.
I detect the rancid stench of hypocrisy in the air.