The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ordered the removal of a Ten Commandments monument on the State Capitol grounds, ruling that it violated the state Constitution's ban on the use of government property to benefit a religion.
The order immediately drew rebuke from Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt who said the Supreme Court made a wrong decision.
"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," he said.
Pruitt said his office will file a petition with the court for a rehearing in light of the broader implications of the ruling on other areas of state law.
"In the interim, enforcement of the court's order cannot occur. 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," he said.
The monument was installed in 2012 and was donated by Dr. Mike Ritze and his family. Ritze is now a Republican representative with the Oklahoma State Legislature.
Ritze expressed disappointment with the ruling.
"I am deeply disappointed the court did not follow its own precedent or even bother to cite it," he said. "This 'opinion' reads more like a shot from the hip than a real opinion. When the court rules against legislative action that is in compliance with its own precedent, it should at least explain itself to the legislature and the people. What will now become of the Native American religious symbols at the Capitol?"
The court decision was in response to complaints that the monument violated the US Constitution's provision against government establishment of a religion and local laws, according to Reuters.
A lawsuit to remove the monument was filed by four Oklahoma residents before a district court, which denied an injunction.
"We hold that the Ten Commandments Monument violates Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution, is enjoined, and shall be removed," the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision.
The said section states 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."
The monument's placement on Capital grounds was done through a legislative act that was signed by the governor.
In the ruling, the Supreme Court said the plain intent of Article 2 Section 5 "is to ban State Government, its officials, and its subdivisions from using public money or property for the benefit of any religious purpose."
It said the framers of the Constitution specifically banned any uses "indirectly" benefitting religion.
"As this Court has previously observed, the word 'indirectly' signifies the doing, by an obscure, circuitous method, something which is prohibited from being done directly, and includes all methods of doing the thing prohibited, except the direct means," it said.
While those who argued that the monument was placed for historic purpose, the Supreme Court said "the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths."
It ruled that "because the monument at issue operates for the use, benefit or support of a sect or system of religion, it violates Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution and is enjoined and shall be removed."
