« Copycat? | Main | Texas Republicans are going insane »
August 17, 2003
The Ten Commandments
Kynn at Shock and Awe has an excellent evisceration of the claim that the Ten Commandments are the "moral foundation of law" in the US as claimed by Judge Ray Moore of Alabama (among others). Moore, as you probably know, erected a 2.5 ton monument to the Ten Commandments in the the rotunda of the Alabama state judicial building.
Moore had the monument placed in the building without the knowledge or consent of his fellow justices in the middle of the night on July 31, 2001.Even though the court ruled against him, Moore has refused to remove the monument and so the case continues, and both sides expect it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court.Privately raised funds paid for the sculpture, but Moore allowed a film crew from Coral Ridge Ministries -- the Religious Right organization run by Florida-based television evangelist D. James Kennedy -- to tape footage of the monument's construction and placement. Coral Ridge later sold the videotape as a fundraiser, and has paid for Moore's legal defense.
Moore has said he acted secretly to protect his fellow justices from being named in the lawsuit he was certain would result from his actions.
Moore's expectation became reality shortly thereafter, when Montgomery lawyer Stephen Glassroth filed suit in federal court. Two other Montgomery attorneys joined Glassroth in the suit.
Lawyers from three civil-rights groups -- the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State -- represented the plaintiffs in the October trial.
"The Ten Commandments monument, as the Chief Justice made clear both at the unveiling ceremony and at trial, is a granite reminder to Alabama judges and justices and all other state citizens of the ultimate sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian God over both the state and the church," Judge Thompson said in his opinion that accompanied the ruling.
Thompson said Moore's intent in having the monument installed thus violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits governments from endorsing or promoting a religion
In a fiery speech given just six days before a federal deadline to remove the monument, Chief Justice Roy Moore said he would take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.Now, personally, I think the question is whether or not he will disobey a court order and whether or not he will remove the monument. He does not have to deny God to do so. His personal faith should be in no danger from the removal of the monument. Removal of the monument, in fact, should have no effect whatsoever on his faith. If it does, then Judge Moore has a much bigger problem then a 5,300 pound piece of rock that he's been ordered to get rid of."I have no intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments, the moral foundation of our law," he said. "To do so would, in effect, be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state.
"The question is not whether I will remove the monument," Moore added. "It is not a question of whether I will disobey or obey a court order. The real question is whether or not I will deny the God that created us."
This is part of what puzzles me sometimes about extreme fundamentalists like Judge Moore. While my decisions are guided by the tenets of my own faith, whether those tenets are posted somewhere for someone else to see is irrelevent to my dedication to them or to the Gods whom I serve. I don't need to see them displayed each time I enter a place to be reminded of the place they have (and should have) in my heart and in my life. I'm quite capable of keeping them as a priority without an outside reminder, thank you very much.
Moore said he will file the motion "to preserve our rights as a state and nation to acknowledge God."It was meant to keep the government from tell us what religion we had to follow and to prevent them from interfering in our religious lives. When the state of Alabama puts a huge rock in their justice building with the Ten Commandments on it, claiming that they are the "moral foundation of our laws", the state is, in effect, telling people that they consider Christianity to be the only religion worth upholding - which, while perhaps technically different than saying someone must follow Christianity, makes it clear that those who choose not to follow Christianity will not be treated with the same respect as those who do. It creates the impression, if not the legal actuality, of a dual-tier system based on what religion a person follows."Separation of church and state never was meant to separate God from our government. It was never meant to separate God from our law," he said.
This is precisely the kind of thing the First Amendment was intended to prevent. Our Founding Fathers wanted people to be free to follow their conscience in matters of religion.
The First Amendment's "very purpose is to allow us the freedom to worship Almighty God. That freedom is being taken from us by federal courts who misuse the First Amendment to take away our rights instead of as a shield to preserve them for us."The problem, of course, is that what Judge Moore says is the state's and nation's right to acknowledge God is a right that the state and national governments don't have. They are barred by the Constitution from establishing any kind of a state religion.
The Freedom of Religion is not a "states' rights" issue. It is an issue of personal freedom. The state and federal governments have to treat my religion exactly the same as it treats yours or anyone else's. It can't just go and decide that it likes one faith better, and so is going to make everything in the state more "friendly" or "accessible" (or anything else) to that particular faith.
As a Heathen (the "technical" term for a Norse Pagan, I've learned), I would never feel the least bit comfortable attending court in a building with the Ten Commandments emblazoned on a piece of statuary, hung on a plaque or otherwise posted about the place. I would feel like if the topic of my religion came up, I wouldn't be able to get a fair shake - that the court people, in accord with their Christian faith, and as sanctioned by the system that established and maintains such monuments, declaring the state's decision to hold that particular faith in a higher regard, would consider me, at best, some kind of fruit loop, and at worse view me as some kind of lesser being. And granted, I could provoke that same response in people even if the state didn't endorse their particular faith - but the difference would be that without the state's endoresement, they would likely feel less free to act on their religious bias, and I would feel like if I were subjected to religious discrimination, I'd at least have some kind of recourse in which to pursue my grievance.
At any rate, Kynn's article is great - he not only takes a look at what the monument says compared to what the actual Ten Commandments are, but he also examines each commandement individually to see if it actually holds up as a "moral foundation" for our laws. Give him a buzz.
Posted by thorswitch at August 17, 2003 04:29 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.differentstrings.info/mt/mt-tb-ds.cgi/1059
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Ten Commandments:
» http://www.nyghtfall.com/archives/002856.html from Matthew Hutchinson - A New Voice
Eric Gilson has some good points in a comment he left to an earlier post on the Ten Commandments. I thought they were worth posting up front. My feelings on Ray Moore's decision NOT to remove the Ten Commandments from... [Read More]
Tracked on August 26, 2003 05:22 PM
» grand casino from grand casino
grand casino and certainly disabling the moved-almost neglect and mismanagement, as giving stjal for every species of sl [Read More]
Tracked on September 23, 2005 09:45 AM
» loans from loans
loans is 10-shot at the interestingness, but, since there is no oxidizable cross-fertilisation purposeful around that electrode, it esca [Read More]
Tracked on September 29, 2005 07:28 PM
Comments
I think this story is even worse than it appears on the surface - e.g., someone's sincere but misguided religious views in opposition to church-state separation. This appears to be a deliberate attempt by the Right to stage a "worst-case scenario" of National Guard troops fighting through good, churchgoing folks to tear down the Ten Commandments by force. They hope that the power of this image will discredit the whole idea of the secular state and consolidate public support for encroaching theocracy. It's not a matter of rights - it's a matter of power and propaganda: right out of the Goebbels playbook. The ACLU and its allies (myself included, BTW), need to play this very carefully.
Posted by: Rob Salkowitz at August 18, 2003 11:37 AM
My feelings on Ray Moore's decision NOT to remove the Ten Commandments from a public building.
Our founding fathers introduced the idea to separate church and state, NOT the separation of GOD and state. It is perfectly acceptable to acknowledge God, we do so on our currency, but it is NOT acceptable to force one's persoanl beliefs onto others. The Ten Commandments is a referrence to Christianity NOT God himself. Does a Buddhist not receive the same treatment within our judicial system? Does a Muslim have to accept the Ten Commandments to hear his/her case in a US court of law? Rev. Ray Moore is so far out of line with his cause, it makes me sick. The guy should be thrown in jail for defying the courts, and the statue removed on the principle that Christianity is not a universal religion, and symbols of that religion have no place within our public buildings.
Posted by: Eric Gilson at August 26, 2003 12:05 PM
Good points - thanks!
Posted by: kriselda jarnsaxa at August 26, 2003 05:18 PM