August 23, 2003

Good Editorial on Judge Moore and the Ten Commandments

The Kansas City Star has a well-reasoned editorial today in opposition to Judge Roy Moore's refusal to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building's rotunda.

His request that the U.S. Supreme Court stop a federal judge from enforcing the removal order was a waste of time and money — as were two earlier pleas to an appeals court. All of these requests have been rejected.
It's good to see someone pointing out that this man's personal, religious crusade is costing our courts' time and money - not just the courts having to hear his appeals, but also his own court, which has surely been at least somewhat disrupted by his activities.

The article also notes that Moore's arguments carry some undesirable overtomes:

Earlier, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against him. The panel noted that Moore's arguments about states' rights echoed claims of segregationists such as George C. Wallace, the state's governor in the 1960s.
In the days of Wallace, the goal of the states' rights arguments was to allow segregationist states be able to treat blacks (and other minorities) as second-class citizens rather than equals - and deny them the basic rights that whites take for granted. Moore's goals aren't that much different, when you get down to it, though he wants to engage in discrimination based on religious beliefs rather than skin colour. This is something that has been forbidden by the Bill of Rights straight from the off, and the idea that it's still open to question over 220 years later speaks volumes about the refusal of some people to accept that the world does not revolve aorund them and their ideals.
The Ten Commandments serve as the foundation for the religious beliefs for many Americans. But placing them in a court building that serves everyone is a clear violation of the constitutional ban on government championing specific religious beliefs.

This ban has served the country well, sparing the United States much of the terrible religious strife that has plagued other societies throughout history.


This, I think, is a point that can't be stressed to strongly or too often. We hear frequently about the dangers posed by countries run by theocrats who are bent in remaking the world according to their religious vision. We campaign against and condemn nations that subjugate women because they believe that is what their God demands. Our nation is a target for terrorists who consider us a great evil, on a crusade to eradicate their religion. All people who live in these theocracies are expected to conform to the rules of the religion whether they believe it or not, and it is a crime to practice or teach any faith other than that approved by the state. Few of us would ever want to live in such a society.

Yet, to a great extent, that is what Judge Roy Moore and his supporters are claiming they do want - a government founded on their interpretation of the Bible, in which believers are granted special rights and privileges, and non-believers are viewed as, at best, inconsequential and undeserving of equal treatment. Ironically, it seems that some of those who are most opposed to the extremist Islamic theocracies in the Middle East are also the ones pushing the hardest for what in essence would be an extremist Christian theocracy. They are so blinded by their quest for political and religious confluence that they fail to see that the problem isn't what religion a theocracy is based upon - the problem is with the concept of Theocracy in and of itself.

[Kynn of Shock and Awe has two excellent articles on Christianism here and here - give them a read - they've quite eye-opening.]

Moore has abused his high state office, squandered tax dollars, encouraged public ignorance about the Constitution, insulted the federal judicial system and held his state up to ridicule. It's time for him to start showing the respect for the law that he no doubt expects from those who appear before him.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Posted by thorswitch at August 23, 2003 07:35 AM | TrackBack


Comments

As a achool teacher for many years, I find it very sad that some excellent minds feel that religion is outlawed. As a student of U>S>History, it is evident that our forefathers were very much into religion. They wanted to insure that the citizens of this new nation were not forced to pay taxes toward a particular church as they did in England. I am no erudite professor of anything in particular, but I have read the history of the making of our country. I can not even understand why some people insist that the issue is a matter of interpretation. What hogwash! Our forefathers made it very clear. The arguements come from those who write well, know the right people, and love to argue against a clear point. I am so sorry that I can not make these pseudo-intellectuals see the truth.

Posted by: George H. Thomas at October 3, 2003 03:05 PM

As a achool teacher for many years, I find it very sad that some excellent minds feel that religion is outlawed. As a student of U>S>History, it is evident that our forefathers were very much into religion. They wanted to insure that the citizens of this new nation were not forced to pay taxes toward a particular church as they did in England. I am no erudite professor of anything in particular, but I have read the history of the making of our country. I can not even understand why some people insist that the issue is a matter of interpretation. What hogwash! Our forefathers made it very clear. The arguements come from those who write well, know the right people, and love to argue against a clear point. I am so sorry that I can not make these pseudo-intellectuals see the truth.

Posted by: George H. Thomas at October 3, 2003 03:06 PM

As a achool teacher for many years, I find it very sad that some excellent minds feel that religion is outlawed. As a student of U>S>History, it is evident that our forefathers were very much into religion. They wanted to insure that the citizens of this new nation were not forced to pay taxes toward a particular church as they did in England. I am no erudite professor of anything in particular, but I have read the history of the making of our country. I can not even understand why some people insist that the issue is a matter of interpretation. What hogwash! Our forefathers made it very clear. The arguements come from those who write well, know the right people, and love to argue against a clear point. I am so sorry that I can not make these pseudo-intellectuals see the truth.

Posted by: George H. Thomas at October 3, 2003 03:07 PM