Friendly Atheist analyzed the decision:
The ruling is very clear about what the law says and how obviously this monument violates it:
The text of Article 2, Section 5 [of the State Constitution]…:
“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.”In other words, what the hell were you all thinking putting this monument up in the first place?!
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. Use of the words “no,” “ever,” and “any” reflects the broad and expansive reach of the ban.…
As concerns the “historic purpose” justification, the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths.
The Justices made clear that, unlike a previous Supreme Court case, this wasn’t about whether Oklahoma’s monument violated the First Amendment. It violated the state’s Constitution, and that’s all that matters.Amusingly, both Satanists and Hindus were petitioning to have monuments also appear at the State Capitol grounds but now the Oklahoma Supreme Court has correctly ruled that religious displays on state property are unconstitutional.