Court Opinion

ID: 9809709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:22:20.594543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:39.520553
License: Public Domain

GURICH, J.,
concurring in the denial of rehearing:
T1 I fully join in the order denying rehearing in this case and in Justice Taylor's concurring opinion, but write separately to emphasize a few additional points, In his Petition for Rehearing, the Attorney General reargues issues previously presented and already fully considered by this Court, No grounds exist for rehearing this case. See Tomahawk Res., Inc. v. Craven, 2005 OK 82, ¶ 1, 130 P.3d 222, 225-26 (Okla.2005).
T 2 Despite the fact that this Court decided the case solely on the basis of Art, II, § 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution,1 on rehearing, the Attorney General continues to rely on Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005), arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a nearly identical Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capitol under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S, Constitution.2 While the words and symbols on the monument at the Oklahoma State Capitol are the same as the Texas monument, the similarities between the two cases stop there, The Attorney General fails to mention that the Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capitol has been in place since 1961 and was donated to the state as "one of over a hundred largely identical monoliths, and of over a thousand paper replicas, distributed to state and local governments throughout the Nation over the course of several decades" by the Fraternal Order of Eagles3 Additionally, the Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capitol "sits in a large park containing 17 monuments and 21 historical markers ... [in al setting [that] does not readily lend itself to meditation or any other religious activity."4 In contrast, the Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma State Capitol was not erected as part of the Fraternal Order of Eagles program of the 1950s and 19603, but was installed in November of 2012 as a result of the passage of the Ten Commandments Monument Display Act by the Oklahoma Legislature and subsequent donations by private parties. The monument at the Oklahoma State Capitol sits alone on the north side of the Capitol, a location specifically selected as a "serene, reflective setting" and "one which supports the reflective purpose for the individual" in relation to the monument.5 The monument at the Texas State Capitol went unchallenged for more than forty years; the monument at the Oklahoma State Capitol was challenged less than a year after it was installed.
T3 And although the Attorney General asks us to rely on the Van Orden case, he does not mention McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S, 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005), which was decided the same day as Yan Orden, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Ten Commandments display at a Kentucky courthouse.6 In McCreary, *1045the Ten Commandments display at the Kentucky courthouse was first installed in the summer of 1999 and was challenged almost immediately in November of 1999. Distinguishing the Texas case from the Kentucky case, Justice Breyer wrote:
This case also differs from McCreary County, where the short (and stormy) history of the courthouse Commandments' displays demonstrates the substantially religious objectives of those who mounted them, and the effect of this readily apparent objective upon those who view them, That history there indicates a governmental effort substantially to promote religion, not simply an effort primarily to reflect, historically, the secular impact of a religiously inspired document. And, in today's world, in a Nation of so many different religious and comparable nonreligious fundamental beliefs, a more contemporary state effort to focus attention upon a religious text is certainly likely to prove divisive in a way that this longstanding, pre-existing monument [in Texas] has not.7
The same can be said in the case before us-almost immediately after the monument's installation at the Oklahoma State Capitol, the storm began. Not only was a lawsuit filed within months of the installation of the monument, but the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission was forced to put a moratorium on monument requests because numerous groups either applied to have their own symbols erected or threatened litigation.8
T4 Whether or not the Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma State Capitol passes constitutional muster under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not before this Court, But a host of federal courts have struck down similar Ten Commandments displays under the Establishment Clause. In Books v. City of Elkhart, Indiana, 235 F.3d 292 (7th Cir.2000), for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cireuit held that a Ten Commandments monument at the municipal building in the City of Elkhart erected in 1958 by the Fraternal Order of Eagles was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. More recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a Ten Commandments monument erected in 2005 at the Haskell County courthouse in Stigler, Oklahoma, was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. Green v. Haskell County Board of Com'rs, 568 F.3d 784 (10th Cir.2009).9
*1046¶ 5 It should also be noted that in this case the Legislature completely ignored the role the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission is supposed to play in selecting works of art to be displayed at the Oklahoma State Capitol and the Governor's Mansion, See 74 0.8. § 4102. Section 4104 of Title 74 provides that the Commission shall "[elstablish standards for the acquisition and display of works of art for public display in the Capitol and the Governor's Mansion and select such works. Such works of art shall be directly related to the history and culture of the State of Oklahoma." Additionally, section 115:10-1-2 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code provides: "Any foundation, group or individual interested in financing and donating an appropriate work of art to the State for use in the Capitol or the Governor's Mansion shall submit a written request for approval of a permanent display to the Commission." 10 At no point was a written request submitted to the Commission for approval, nor did the Commission affirmatively vote to authorize the placement of the Ten Commandments monument.11 The Commission had no input with regard to the design of the monument,12 and the only vote taken by the Commission with regard to the monument was its location on the Capitol grounds.13
T6 Instead, the Legislature passed the Ten Commandments Monument Display Act, which was signed into law in May of 2009, and provides in part:
The State Capitol Preservation Commission or designee is hereby authorized to permit and arrange for the placement on the State Capitol grounds of a suitable monument displaying the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments monument shall use the same words used on the monument at issue in Van Orden v. Perry, that the United State Supreme Court ruled constitutional. This monument shall be designed, constructed, and placed on Capitol grounds by private entities at no expense to the State of Oklahoma,. The State Capitol Preservation Commission or designee is authorized to assist private entities in selecting a location for the monument and arranging a suitable time for its placement.14
The Act was sponsored by State Representative Mike Ritze of Broken Arrow, who is an *1047"Ioirdained Southern Baptist Deacon and Sunday School teacher." 15 Representative Ritze not only voted to approve the Act, but after the passage of the Act, Representative Ritze personally contracted with SI Memorials for the creation of the monument.16 All work done on the monument itself was financed by Representative Ritze through private funds, and the monument specifically, and prominently, states that it was "presented to the people of Oklahoma by Dr. Mike and Connie Ritze and children Amity, Heidi and Jamey."17
T7 As this Court held in its Per Curiam opinion, the plain language of Art. II, § 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution mandates the removal of the monument:
§ 5. Public money or property-Use for sectarian purposes.
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.18
Our Per Curiam opinion issued in this case, in my view, implicitly overruled Meyer v. Oklahoma City, 1972 OK 45, 496 P.2d 789, where this Court upheld the displaying of a fifty-foot cross at the state fairgrounds. I would explicitly overrule Meyer as that case was wrongly decided.19 Regardless, Meyer is clearly distinguishable from this case. In Meyer, the Court said:
The cross is in a distinctly secular environment in the midst of persons in pursuit of distinctly secular entertainment. Notwithstanding the alleged sectarian conceptions of the individuals who sponsored the installation of this cross, it cannot be said to display, articulate or portray, except in a most evanescent form, any ideas that are alleged to pertain to any of the sectarian institutions or systems named in Art. 2, § 5, The alleged commercial setting in which the cross now stands and the commercial atmosphere that obscures whatever suggestions may emanate from its silent form, stultify its symbolism and vitiate any use, benefit or support for any sect, church, denomination, system of religion or sectarian institution as such.20
18 In this case, the Ten Commandments monument is permanently placed on the grounds of our State Capitol -the heart of our state government and "the civic home of every one of the State's citizens." 21 The fact that the "monument 'is installed on public property implies official recognition and reinforcement of its message. That implication is especially strong when the sign stands in front of the seat of government itself." 22 In fact, "the seat of government 'is so plainly under government ownership and control that every display on its property is marked *1048implicitly with governmental approval. 23
¶ 9 And the monument itself is not silent, but displays the following message:
the Ten Commandments
I AM the LORD thy God.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images,
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee,
Thou shalt not kill ||
Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. -
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbors.24
T 10 The legislative findings included in the Ten Commandments Display Act state that the "Ten Commandments are an important component of the foundation of the laws and legal system of the United State of America and of the State of Oklahoma." 25 But a self-serving declaration within the statute stating that the purpose of the monument is secular is of no meaning. Stone, 449 U.S. at 41, 101 S.Ct. 192.
{11 "Attempts to secularize what is unquestionably a sacred text defy credibility and disserve people of faith"26 The Ten Commandments are "plainly religious in nature," and are "undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths."" 27For many followers, the Commandments represent the literal word of God as spoken to Moses and repeated to his followers after descending from Mount Sinai." 28 The monument foeuses "not only on subjects that are the legitimate concern of civil authorities, but also subjects that are beyond the ken of any government and that address directly the relationship of the individual human being and God."29 "[The first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day."30
{12 But even the "universally accepted prohibitions (as against murder, theft, and the like)" rest on "the sanction of the divinity proclaimed at the beginning of the text." 31 As the Court stated in McCreary County: "This is not to deny that the Commandments have had influence on civil or secular law; a major text of a majority religion is bound to be felt, The point is simply that the original text viewed in its entirety is unmistakably religious statement dealing with religious obligations and with morality subject to religious sanction." 32 Stripping the Ten Com*1049mandments of their religious significance and characterizing them as secular and a component of the foundation .of the laws of this State trivializes the sacred nature of the text and degrades those individuals who truly believe the Ten Commandments are a covenant between God and His people.
{13 The legislative authorization eschewing a religious meaning also includes Section C of the Ten Commandments Display Act, which simply.cannot be ignored:
In the event that the legality or the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument is challenged in a court of law, the Oklahoma Attorney General or Liberty Legal Institute is hereby authorized to prepare and present a legal defense of the monument.33
Not only is the Liberty Legal Institute named specifically in the Act, but an attorney for the Liberty Legal Institute entered an appearance on behalf of the Commission in the District Court shortly after the Attorney General filed his Answer in the case, and that same attorney also entered an appearance in this case on appeal on behalf of the Commission. The Liberty Legal Institute 34 is based out of Plano, Texas, with its stated mission to "defend and restore religious liberty across America-in our schools, for our churches, inside the military, and throughout the public arena," 35 The "Liberty Institute fights to restore religious liberty pursuant to the principles of America's founders-that religions freedom does not mean confining religious expression to church or home, but that true religious liberty consists of recognizing individuals God-given right to follow their conscience and to live and act according to their faith in every area of life," 36 With regard to the Ten Commandments monuments, the Liberty Institute website states:
Liberty Institute is committed to enforcing the law that allows Ten Commandments displays in every state across the nation. But we can't do this alone. When you give your donation below; you help continue the work of enforcing the law that allows appropriate Ten - Commandments - monuments-like the Ten Commandments monument on the Oklahoma capitol grounds. So thank you for giving today! 37
On its website, under the tab "Pray", the Liberty Institute lists "prayer requests," including the case of "Prescott v. Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission": "Please pray for the Oklahoma Supreme Court justices as they consider the motion for rehearing."38 Although the Legislature's stated secular purpose should generally receive deference, it is clear the secular purpose stated by the Legislature in the Ten Commandments Display Act is a "sham secular purpose," coming secondary to its obvious religious objective. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 864, 125 S.Ct. 2722; See also Stone, 449 U.S. at 41, 101 S.Ct. 192.
' 14 The Act also states that "[the placement of this monument shall not be construed to mean that the State of Oklahoma favors any particular religion or. denomination thereof over others."39This particular version of the Ten Commandments, which is identical to the versions donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in the 1950s and" 19603, was developed by "representatives of Judaism, Protestantism, and Catholicism" who purportedly "believed [it] to be a nonsec*1050tarian version of the Ten Commandments because it could not be identified with any one religious group." 40 But as Justice Stevens noted in the Van Orden case: "There are many distinctive versions of the Decalogue, ascribed to by different religions and even different denomimations within a particular foith to a pious and learned observer, these differences may be of enormous religious significance." 41 - He continued: "[In the Jewish version of the Sixth Commandment God commands: 'You shall not murder; whereas, the King James interpretation of the same command is: "Thou shalt not kill' The difference between the two versions is not merely semantic; rather, it is but one example of a deep theological dispute.42 Displaying this particular version of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the State Capitol not only violates the Oklahoma Constitution but also "invariably places the State at the center of a serious sectarian dispute[.]" 43
15 The monument at the State Capitol also includes two Stars of David and the "Greek letters Chi and Rho as the familiar monogram of Christ," 44 representing respectively Judaism and Christianity and confining its approval only to the Judeo-Christian faiths. The eagle clutching the American flag at the top of the monument then specifically links "these two religions, and civil government." 45 "When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual's decision about whether and how to worship.46
1 16 Finally, in spite of the court filings in this case, which conclude that Art. II, § 5, of the Oklahoma Constitution is a Blaine Amendment,47 nothing in the recorded history of the Oklahoma Constitutional Convention, this Court's case law, or any other historical evidence supports this conclusion. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary,. In 1875, Republican presidential candidate and Congressman James Blaine proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically targeting the funding of religious schools with public money.48 "The Amendment came about at a time of heightened controversy over the religious character of American public education and the public funding of private religious schooling, primarily Catholic parochial schools." 49
1 17 After failing to secure the Republican nomination for President, Congressman Blaine abandoned the cause and did not vote on the amendment or take part in any of the debates surrounding the amendment.50 The amendment passed the House of Representatives, but failed to receive the necessary approval from the Senate. 51 - Congressman Blaine's quick abandonment of the amendment has led some scholars to conclude that the "modern-day emphasis placed on the Blaine Amendment is misplaced," 52 and that *1051the attempted passage of the Blaine Amendment shows "our nation's continual willingness to use religious issues for political ends."53
§18 Regardless, in 1889, a Republican-controlled Congress resurrected remnants of the failed Blaine Amendment in the Enabling Act of 1889, mandating that "four new states-Washington, Montana, North and South Dakota-include[ ] no-funding provisions in their constitutions" to become states.54 From there, a no-funding provision was added to Oklahoma's Enabling Act in 1906, mandating "[that provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of said State and free from sectarian control. ..." 55
¶ 19 The Oklahoma Constitutional Convention adopted the language of the Enabling Act verbatim into our Constitution in Article I, § & of the Oklahoma Constitution entitled "Public schools," which states: "Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all children of the state and free from sectarian control...." 56 Although the adoption of such language by the Oklahoma Constitutional Convention could have been based on the unabashedly biased attitude toward Catholic parochial schools found in the failed Blaine Amendment, my review of the debates and proceedings of the Convention does not reflect such attitudes.57 Nevertheless, what is clear is that the broader mandates of Art. II, § 5 cannot be found in the Enabling Act and concluding that Art. II, § 5 was the corollary to such language in the Enabling Act is error. 58
20 As noted by R.L. Williams, a former Chief Justice of this Court and a delegate to the Oklahoma Constitutional Convention, Art. II, § 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution traces its origins to the Massachusetts Bill of Rights of 1780 passed ninety-five years before the Blaine Amendment, the Michigan Constitution of 1885 passed some forty years before the Blaine Amendment, the Missouri Constitution of 1820 passed more than fifty years before the Blaine Amendment, and the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 passed almost 100 years before the Blaine Amendment.59
*1052~ T21 In Connell v. Gray, 1912 OK 607, 33 Okla. 591, 127 P. 417, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which included three justices who participated in the Oklahoma Constitutional Convention 60 and which was decided just five years after the ratification of our Constitution, similarly traced the origins of Art. II, § 5 to the Missouri Constitution and the Michigan Constitution, which were "prototype[s]" of "[the first legislative act passed toward the separation of church and state ... by Virginia in 1786, entitled 'An act for establishing - religious ~ freedom,'" - and "brought about by Thomas Jefferson." 61 The Virginia Act was later embodied in the Virginia Constitution of 1830, which predates the proposed Blaine Amendment by forty-five years.
T22 Albert Ellis, the second Viee-Presi-dent of the Oklghoma Constitutional Convention, wrote about Art. II, § 5 shortly after the ratification of the Oklahoma Constitution:
This section not only guards the citizens right to be free from taxation for the support of the church, but protects the rights of all denominations, however few the number of their respective adherents, by with-holding any incentive that might prompt any ecclesiastical body to participate in political struggles and by reason of their numbers exert an undue influence and become beneficiaries at the expense of the public and a menace to weaker denominations and ultimately destructive of religious liberty.62
~ 28 More recent annotations also make no mention of the failed Blaine Amendment in their discussions of Art, II, § 5; "This provision relating to the church-state issue is much more expli¢it than that found in the U.S, Constitution." 63 A study of the Oklahoma Constitution by the League of. Women Voters provides: "The Oklahoma Bill of Rights further details the separation of church and state by denying the use of state money or property for the benefit of any particular religious seet or denomination." 64
24 A comparison of the text of the failed Blaine Amendment and the text of Art. II, § 5 also reveals that Art, II, §°5 is broader than the Blaine Amendment and does not limit its application only to schools. Art, II, § 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.65
Whereas the failed Blaine Amendment provided:
No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.66
Characterizing Art. II, §5 of the Oklahoma Constitution as a Blaine Amendment completely ignores the intent of the founders of the Oklahoma Constitution who purposely sought to ensure future generations of Oklahomans would be free to practice religious freedom without fear of governmental intervention.67
*1053125 Justice O'Connor wrote in the McCreary County case:
At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish The well-known statement that '[wle are a religious people/ has proved true.... Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly? 68
The constitutional guarantees of separation of church and state in many state constitutions "reflect their origin in specific disputes about the relationship between church and state ... and represent considered constitutional judgments about contentious church-state issues." 69 - Art. II, § 6 in our Constitution is no different, Mr. Ellis wrote: "The Convention, knowing the history of the union of Church and State in Europe and in New England in Colonial days, profited by the lessons of the past and made it impossible to appropriate or give to any church denomination or ecclesiastical servant or any religious institution, as such; the money or property of the public." 70
1 26 Mr. Ellis went on to state that Art. II, § 5 "is one of the wisest provisions of our organic law. If there should ever be a demand by any ecclesiastical body that any part or portion of the public funds or any public property, be diverted to the use or benefit of any church or denomination or any of its servants, or for the support of any religious institution, as such; this section will be found to be one of the safest of our safeguards." 71
127 This generation has the same obligation today as the Founders did in 1907 to protect the Constitution of our State, lest future generations review it in a casual way. As one member of the clergy wrote in 19238; "The People of this State should see to it well that [Art. II, § 5] in the bill of rights is never emasculated or nullified by any future convention, by one jot or title, but left intact as one of the imperishable provisions of the organic law protecting the people in their right against any encroachment by any eccle-slastical organization." 72

. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983).

. I first note that Van Orden was a plurality decision with seven separate opinions, No opinion garnered a majority of the Court, The splintered decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court "provide[ ] a justification for a state court to look to its state constitution for guidance. Certainly the Supreme Court, by its inconsistent decisions in establishment clause cases, has forfeited the deference often given to its rulings." G. Alan Tarr, Church and State in the States, 64 Wash, L.Rev. 73, at 109 (1989).

. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 713, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The project began in Minnesota in 1943 and was inspired by a Minnesota juvenile court judge's experience with a juvenile offender who had never heard of the Ten Commandments, Id. The Minnesota chapter of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, of which the judge was a member, began distributing paper copies of the Ten Commandments to courthouses nationwide, Id. "When Cecil B. DeMille, who at that time was filming the movie The Ten Commandments, heard of the ... endeavor, he teamed up with the Eagles to produce the type of granite monolith ... displayed in front of the Texas Capitol and at courthouse squares, city halls, and public parks throughout the Nation." Id.

. Id. at 702, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment).

. Record on Accelerated Appeal, Ex. 4, The monument sits approximately nine feet from the Capitol building on a slightly raised elevation and sits approximately 250-300 feet away from the Flag Plaza.

. Until the decisions in McCreary County and Van Orden, the only other U.S. Supreme Court case to address a Ten Commandments display *1045was Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 101 S.Ct. 192, 66 L.Ed.2d 199 (1980), where the Court struck down a Kentucky statute requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed on the walls of public school classrooms in the state.

. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 703, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Justice Breyer provided the decisive fifth vote in upholding the monument at the Texas State Capitol but voted with the majority in striking down the Kentucky display.

. One such request was from the Satanic Temple, who requested "a monument to Baphomet, which is a form of Satan, to be placed on the Capitol grounds." Record on Accelerated Appeal Ex. 4 (Deposition of Trait Thompson at 30). On December 19, 2013, the Commission minutes reflect Commission Chair, Trait Thompson, moved to put a moratorium on monument requests:
Earlier this year the ACLU brought a law suit against the Capitol Preservation Commission regarding the placement of the Ten Commandments Monument on the north lawn of the Capitol. - Since that time the CPC has received numerous requests from individuals and groups seeking to place additional monuments on the grounds. At this time, I believe action by the CPC on any of these requests would be premature given that the lawsuit has yet to be decided, Therefore, I move the CPC place a moratorium on consideration of all monument requests for the State Capitol and its grounds until the lawsuit has been adjudicated.
Mr, Thompson's motion carried unanimously, and 'the moratorium remains in place.

, See also Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. New Kensington-Arnold Sch. Dist., 919 F.Supp.2d 648 (W.D.Pa.2013) (denying school's motion to dismiss because plaintiffs stated a facially plausible claim that a Ten Commandments monument in front of a high school that had been in place for decades violated the Establishment Clause) ACLU of Ohio Found., Inc. v. DeWeese, 633 F.3d 424 (6th Cir.2011) (holding that poster hung in courtroom in 2006 including the Ten Commandments and stating that law is based upon morality violated the Establishment Clause and was not protected religious speech); Staley v. Harris Cnty., Texas, 461 F.3d 504, 509-515 (5th Cir.2006) (holding that a monument in place since 1956 in front of a courthouse prominently displaying an open bible in a glass display case, under the circumstances, violated the Establishment Clause), rehearing en banc, 485 F.3d *1046305 (2007) (appeal dismissed as moot on rehearing after the monument was removed to storage due to renovations at courthouse) Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Found., Inc. v. Ashbrook, 375 F.3d 484 (6th Cir.2004) (striking down a Ten Commandments display hung in a county courtroom in 2000); Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.2003) (striking down Ten Commandments monument placed in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building in 2001); Adland v. Russ, 307 F.3d 471 (6th Cir.2002) (striking down Ten Commandments monument donated by Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971, which had been removed in 1980 and put in storage, but which the Kentucky Legislature attempted to reinstall on capitol grounds in 2000); Am. Civil Liberties Union of Tenn. v. Hamilton, Cnty., 202 F.Supp.2d 757 (E.D.Tenn.2002) (striking down Ten Commandments display put up in 2001 on the wall of county courthouse); Ind. Civil Liberties Union v. O'Bannon, 259 F.3d 766 (7th Cir.2001) (enjoining Ten Commandments monument at the Indiana State Capitol that was planned to be erected in 2000); Kimbley v. Lawrence Cnty., Ind., 119 F.Supp.2d 856 (S.D.Ind.2000) (enjoining Ten Commandments monument sought to be erected on lawn of county courthouse in 2000).

. Section 115;1-1-4(c)(3)(D) of the Administrative Code provides that the Architecture and Grounds Committee of the Commission is specifically responsible for "[alpproval and placement of all monuments and sculptures surrounding the buildings[.]"

. Record on Accelerated Appeal, Ex. 4 (Deposition of Duane Mass at 67).

. Record on Accelerated Appeal, Ex. 4 (Deposition of Duane Mass at 49). Section 115:10-1-2(a) also provides that "[oJuly art and art objects of highest museum quality, consistent with legislative directives and approved by the Commission shall be permitted for permanent display in public areas of the Capitol." Duane Mass, Capitol Architect and member of the Commission, testified he "did not see the monument physically until it was installed." Record on Accelerated Appeal, Ex. 4 (Deposition of Duane Mass at 49).

. Record on Accelerated Appeal, Ex. 4 (Deposttion of Duane Mass at 67). The location of the monument was approved by a vote of seven to four, but the record indicates the actual location of the monument was not even the location approved by the Commission, although both locations are on the north side of the Capitol, Record on Accelerated Appeal, Ex. 4; Record on Accelerate Appeal, Ex. 12 at 7.

. 74 0.8. § 4110. The Act went into effect November 1, 2009,

, About Mike, Re-Elect Dr. Mike Ritze, http:// www.mikeritze.com/aboutmike.html(last - visited July 20, 2015).

, SI Memorials employees then traveled to Austin, Texas, and made rubbings of the Ten Commandments monument located at the Texas State Capitol, Work on the Monument began based on those rubbings. Record on Accelerated Appeal, Ex. 4.

. Art. V, § 24 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: "A member of the Legislature, who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill, proposed or pending before the Legislature, shall disclose the fact to the House of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon." (emphasis added).

. Okla. Const. art. II, § 5.

. I see no reason for this Court to rely on the Lemon Test, as articulated in U.S. Supreme Court case law interpreting the Establishment Clause. Nowhere does Art. II, § 5 mention whether or not "a reasonable observer, aware of the history and context of the community in which the conduct occurs, would view the practice as communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval." Green, 568 F.3d at 799.
The text of Art. II, § 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution plainly provides more protection to the citizens of this State than does the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.. .."

, Meyer, 1972 OK 45, ¶ 11, 496 P.2d at 792-93. The Meyer Court said the cross was in a "state of disrepair," suggesting the cross had been at the fairgrounds a number of years before being challenged.

. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 745, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Souter, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).

. Id. at 721, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

. Books, 235 F.3d at 306 (citing Am. Jewish Cong. v. City of Chicago, 827 F.2d 120, 128 (7th Cir.1987)).

. - After the installation of the monument, spelling errors wore discovered on the monument. Shortly after the discovery of such mistakes, the misspelling of "Sabbeth" was corrected to "Sabbath," and the misspelling of "maidseruant" was corrected to "maidservant." Misspellings Mark Ten Commandments Monument At Oklahoma State Capitol, Newson6, hitp;//www mnewson6. com/story/20116587/misspellings-mark-ten-commandmentsmonument-at-oklahoma-state-capitol (last visited July 20, 2105).
The last sentence of this particular version of the Ten Commandments is repugnant to existing laws as women are no longer considered property and slavery was abolished before Oklahoma statehood,

. 2009 Okla. Sess. Laws Ch. 204. The legislative findings in Section A were not codified in 74 0.8. § 4110, nor would anyone observing the monument at the Capitol be alerted to the alleged link between the Ten Commandments and the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 717, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Stevens, J. dissenting) (emphasis added).

. Stone, 449 U.S. at 41, 101 S.Ct. 192.

. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 716, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Stevens, J. dissenting).

. Books, 235 F.3d at 303.

. - Stone, 449 U.S. at 42, 101 S.Ct. 192.

. McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 868, 125 S.Ct. 2722.

. Id. at 869, 125 S.Ct. 2722.

. 74 0.8.§ 4110(C),

. Numerous courts have held that "[it] is not uncommon for courts to take judicial notice of factual information found on the world wide web." O'Toole v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 499 F.3d 1218, 1224-25 (10th Cir.2007). See also Jeandron v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Md., 510 F'Appx. 223, 227 (4th Cir.2013); City of Monroe Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Bridgestone Corp., 399 F.3d 651, 655 n. 1 (6th Cir.2005). Additionally, 12 O.S. § 2202 provides that a court may take judicial notice of facts "whether requested or not" and when the facts are "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned."

. About Liberty Institute, Liberty Institute, https://www .libertyinstitute.org/about(last visited July 20, 2015).

, Id.

, Help Continue the Work to Enforce the Law That Allows Ten Commandments Displays, Liberty _ Institute, _ https://www.libertyinstitute.org/ pages/take-action/2014-okc~10-commandments, donation-page? (last visited July 20, 2015).

. Pray, Liberty Institute, https://www.liberty institute.org/take-action/pray(last visited July 20, 2015). .

. 74 0.8.§ 4110(D).

. Books, 235 F.3d at 294.

. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 717-18, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).

. Id. at 718 n. 16, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (internal citation omitted).

. Id. at 718-19, 125 S.Ct. 2854.

. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 739, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Souter, J., dissenting).

. Books, 235 F.3d at 307.

. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 883, 125 S.Ct. 2722 (O'Connor, concurring).

. See Brief of Amicus Curice in Support of Defendant-Appellee by Professor Mark E. DeFor-rest. Professor DeForrest's interest in a case about a Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma State Capitol is curious, Professor DeForrest's scholarship on the Blaine Amendment focuses primarily on the effect of state Blaine Amendments on school voucher programs. See Mark Edward DeForrest, Locke v. Davey: The Connection Between the Federal Blaine Amendment and Article I, § 11 of the Washington State Constitution, 40 Tulsa L.Rev, 295 (2004); Mark Edward DeForrest, An Overview and Evaluation of State Blaine Amendments: Origins, Scope and First Amendment Concerns, 26 Harv. J.L. & Pub, Pol'y 551 (2003).

. Steven K. Green, Blaine Amendment Reconsidered, 36 Am. J. Legal Hist, 38, 38 (1992).

. Steven K. Green, The Insignificance of the Blaine Amendment, 2008 BY.U,. LRev. 295, 295 (2008).

. - Green, supra note 48, at 54.

. Green, supra note 49, at 296.

. Green, supra note 48, at 69.

. Id. On that same note, one local commentator observed that although one could make a good case that the monument on the Capitol grounds is unconstitutional, "a shrewd district judge facing an upcoming election would give the benefit of the doubt to the position supported by the substantial majority of Oklahomans." Andrew C. Spiropoulos, Right Thinking: Faith Grows Amid Opposition, The Journal Record, Sept. 24, 2014, The rule of law requires us to uphold the Constitution of this State regardless of what is popular or politically expedient.

. Steven K. Green, The Bible, the School, and the Constitution 232 (2012).

. Act of June 16, 1906, Pub L. No. 234, ch. 3335, 34 Stat. 267 (1906).

. Okla. Const. art. I, § 5.

. Unlike the Republican-controlled Congress, the Oklahoma Constitutional Convention delegates were overwhelmingly Democrat, See Albert H. Ellis, A History of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Oklahoma 49 (1923).

. In Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 723 n. 7, 124 S.Ct. 1307, 158 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court, in discussing the Washington State Constitution, said:
The enabling Act of 1889, which authorized the drafting of the Washington Constitution, required the state constitution to include a provision 'for the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools, which shall be ... free from sectarian control' This provision was included in Article IX, § 4, of the Washington Constitution ('All schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence'), and is not at issue in this case. Neither Davey nor amici have established a credible connection between the Blaine Amendment and Article I, § 11, the relevant constitutional provision (internal citation omitted).
Article I, § 11 of the Washington Constitution is similar to Art. II, § 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution in that it provides in part that "[njo public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment." Id. at 719 n. 2, 124 S.Ct. 1307.

. RL. Williams, The Constitution and Enabling Act of the State of Oklahoma Annotated 10 (1st ed.1912). This Court has relied upon Justice Williams' annotations for identifying the sources for various sections of the Oklahoma Constitution. City of Enid v. Pub. Emps. Relations Bd., 2006 OK 16, n. 4, 133 P.3d 281, 291 n. 4. Additional sources, as discussed herein, further substantiate the sources cited by Justice Williams in identifying the origins of Art. II, § 5.

. Justice RL. Williams, Justice Samuel Hayes, and Justice Matthew Kane, Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the Proposed State of Okla,. Held at Guthrie, Oklahoma Nov, 20, 1906-Nov. 16, 1907 at 26, 36, 70,

. Id. at 421, Thomas Jefferson first used the term "a wall of separation between Church & State" in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, Library of Congress, http:// www.loc. gov/loc/lc1b/9806/danpre html{last visit- - ed July 20, 2015)

. Ellis, supra note 57, at 133-135.

. Danny M. Adkison and Lisa McNair Palmer, The Oklahoma State Constitution: A Reference Guide 30 (2001).

. League of Women Voters, Study of the State Constitution 15 (1966).

. Okla,. Const. art, IL, § 5.

, 4 Cong. Rec. 205 (1875). This is the version originally proposed by Congressman Blaine. The Amendment underwent significant changes while in the Senate, See 4 Cong. Rec. 5453 (1876).

. "Despite their claims to the contrary, opponents of the no-funding principle have generally *1053failed to demonstrate a connection between the Blaine Amendment and the various provisions from legislative histories, convention records, or other historical sources." Green, supra note 49, at 298.

. McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 882, 125 S.Ct. 2722 (O'Connor, J., concurring).

. See Tarr, supra note 2, at 95.

. Ellis, supra note 57, at 133-135.

. Id.

. Id. at 135 (quoting The Rev. J.M. Tressenri-ter).