Posted on 08/15/2003 3:32:39 AM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - The man at the center of the Ten Commandments dispute in Alabama remained defiant Thursday in the face of a federal court order to remove a sculpture of the commandments from the state judicial building in Montgomery.
"I have no intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments and the moral foundation of our law," said Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore at a press conference in the lobby of the judicial building. "To do so would in effect be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state. This I cannot and will not do."
Moore said he would file a writ of prohibition and mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court directing U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson, who wrote the decision ordering the Ten Commandments' removal, "to stop this wrongful interference with state government." If approved, it would bar Thompson from attempting to remove the sculpture.
The move set off immediate sparks of protest from groups devoted to what they refer to as "the separation of church and state." Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), called Moore's refusal to remove the Ten Commandments monument "discouraging."
"He (Moore) wanted his media circus; well, he's going to get it," Boston told CNSNews.com, adding that such a spectacle was also "important" to other Alabama government officials, particularly Republicans Gov. Bob Riley and state Attorney General William Pryor.
Pryor has been nominated by President George W. Bush to fill a vacancy on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that upheld Judge Thompson's decision, but U.S. Senate Democrats are conducting a filibuster to prevent Pryor's nomination from coming up for a vote.
On Thursday, Moore addressed the challenge facing him and other top Republicans in the state.
"Not only will Judge Thompson be served with this writ of prohibition, but also all state officials who have been served with (Thompson's) notice of his injunction (to remove the sculpture), will be served as well," Moore said. "I will uphold my oath to the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of the state of Alabama. It yet remains to be seen what other state officials will do who have been served in the face of this abuse of power, for each of them has also taken an oath to the Constitution of the United States."
Moore's refusal to remove the Ten Commandments sculpture further complicates Pryor's ability to win Senate confirmation as a circuit court judge. Pryor, as the chief law enforcement officer in the state of Alabama, is duty-bound to carry out court rulings. And any refusal to remove the Ten Commandments monument would further prove his unfitness for the bench, Pryor's critics say.
Recently, AU attacked Pryor for designating two attorneys representing Moore in the Ten Commandments dispute as deputy attorneys general. According to press reports, Pryor bestowed the title upon the lawyers because they were representing a state official. Pryor's office did not return calls to CNSNews.com Thursday.
"I think the bottom line is: Bill Pryor needs to rein in his appointees who seem to think that Judge Moore doesn't need to obey a federal court order," AU Executive Director Barry Lynn told NBC13.com in Birmingham when asked why he wrote a letter to Pryor protesting the deputization. "It is an outrageous position for any deputy attorney general to take. They are on the record. They do not think a federal court order applies to them."
As for Moore's latest move in the Ten Commandments case, Boston called it "legal hot air."
"I'm confident that all of this will end with that monument of the Ten Commandments being removed," Boston said.
But Tom Hinton, director of state relations at the Heritage Foundation, dismissed criticism of Moore, saying he was on "solid ground" as far as the question of states' rights was concerned.
"He's not kooky, he's on solid constitutional grounds," Hinton told CNSNews.com. "I wish more states would take such a stand."
Moore said he would "in the very near future" also file a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the court to hear an appeal of the lower court case called Glassroth v. Moore. The Thompson order gave Moore until Aug. 20 to remove the statue and warned that if he refused, fines up to $5,000 per day could be levied against Moore, "and thus the state of Alabama itself, until the monument is removed."
Rallies in support of Moore's position are planned for Saturday, Aug. 16, and Wednesday, Aug. 20 - Thompson's deadline.
"This is going to be a rallying point against all of those who have been trying in every way they can to drive [out] all expression of faith and...establish in essence a religion of atheism in our society," former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes told CNSNews.com this week. Keyes plans to attend Saturday's rally in Montgomery.
"I think the battle lines are drawn, and what's clear is that...we have got to fight back. For too long, the people of this country have been willing to allow this destruction of their basic right to religious freedom. For decades, we have allowed its erosion and the open assault against it, and it's got to be stopped now, or we will have to answer to future generations for allowing one of the most seminal and fundamental rights of liberty to be destroyed, and if it goes, quickly thereafter fall all the rest."
The group American Atheists has also scheduled a counter-rally in Montgomery on Saturday.
See Earlier Story:
Congressman Seeks to Protect Alabama's Ten Commandments Monument (Aug. 14, 2003)
E-mail a news tip to Steve Brown.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
$125,000,000 of taxpayer money, to date, on this issue. Who is getting it, and for what?
I'd love to have an itemized accounting. If you see one, please share. We do need to know who is ripping off the citizens of Alabama.
If anyone has information that the numbers are false and Moore was just lying to pump up his attack on Judge Thompson, I'd love to see it. But those are the only numbers we have at the moment.
.-perhaps it's his politics & moral/spiritual conscience that you don't care for.
I admire his efforts......and hope he succeeds!
Next time you want to attribute motive to me, just ask.
..I see no mention of the Constitution....
...but my opinion stands----I hope he makes it!
First, I was called a "kook" for post the $125M number. My reply was that was Moore's number - ergo, if the number makes one a kook...
As for my Constutional differences with Moore, I said clearly that was "to date" before I heard of the number. This thread came up to day. Check the ones from yesterday, or the day before, or the day before.
I'm more than happy to have a reasoned discussion of these issues with people who don't feel driven to misstate what is posted and attribute things that are not stated. Do you fall in that category?
As for who I wouldn't know, for what to protect your constitutional rights. Before they are all completely eroded.
It is about time someone drew a line in the sand and put a stop to all the P.C. bull.
As far as my rights go, I agree with the eloquent statement of Justice Robert Jackson (you remember him, don't you - the prosecutor at the Nuremburg Trials?)in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943):
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that
no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
I don't know if Judge Moore is high, but he's certainly petty.
Thompson begins his opinion with the following: ” The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made binding upon the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."”
My comment is that this quotation from the first amendment is similar to the famous use of ellipses by Maureen Dowd. The rest of the clause having to do with religion says that we are not supposed to be prevented from freely exercising our religion. This, the courts in numerous decisions, have constrained in an increasing number of ways. In Judge Moore’s case, he is acknowledging his religion very publicly – one could say exercising his religious freedom, by posting a monument containing, among other things, quotations from the Ten Commandments.
The issue of “standing” is raised. Judge Thomas – on PP 15-16 cites case law; ”… the plaintiffs must suffer personal injury "as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error, other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees." … The personal injury may be noneconomic in nature…. An "effect on an individual's use and enjoyment of public land is a sufficient noneconomic injury to confer standing to challenge governmental actions."
One must be a lawyer to understand the fine legal distinction between disallowing psychological consequences for standing and allowing standing based on an individual’s use and enjoyment of public land – a totally psychological reaction in the case of the plaintiffs. Never the less, Judge Thompson found that the plaintiffs have standing.
Judge Thompson next goes on to give us a great deal of background on Judge Moore, his beliefs and his association, such as it is, with Coral Ridge Ministries of which Dr. James Kennedy is pastor.
Judge Thompson then gives us a guided tour of the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building, noting the prominence of the monument, the fact that people walking into the building can’t help but see it, the fact that 14 other quotations inscribed on the monument are not as prominent, that the 10 Commandments look like an open Bible, that two other plaques in the rotunda are not as easily spotted, and that Judge Moore made a speech at the unveiling noting that “the monument depicted the moral foundation of law.”
As if that were no scandalous enough, Judge Thompson – addressing himself in the third person as “the court” found himself in the judicially impermissible position of feeling that the ” monument and its immediate surroundings are, in essence, a consecrated place, a religious sanctuary, within the walls of a courthouse.”
Much is made in this opinion about Judge Moore’s belief in the supremacy of God, not just when the deity is walled away in the sanctuary of a church, but also in our daily lives. In this Judge Thompson has much in common with Charles Schumer who believes that people who take their Christianity seriously must not be permitted to ascend to the bench, since their beliefs disqualify them from rendering impartial judgment in accordance with the law and the constitution.
Since Judge Moore’s beliefs are very much at issue here, and since Judge Moore has made no effort to hide his beliefs, it becomes clear that the motivations of Judge Moore are the underlying issue. If an act by a Christian is ruled illegal, when the same act by an atheist is ruled legal, we have – in an effort to remove Christian symbols form public property – instituted a very definite religious test for public office.
It should be noted that despite the length of the discussion of Judge Moore’s religious beliefs in the decision, there is no claim in it that Judge Moore’s judicial rulings were unconstitutional or even that they were shaped by his religious beliefs.
The bottom line regarding this decision, is that Judge Thompson has – in what appears to be an example of popular judicial religious intolerance - made a major issue of Judge Moore’s religion and his public profession of it. In all of Judge Thompson’s citations of Judge Moore’s statements, Judge Moore seems to be perfectly congruent with mainstream (albeit not Main Line) Christian theology.
It appears that Judge Moore’s display fails the Lemon test. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, that test says it’s OK to have a symbol of the Christian religion on public property if it is sufficiently surrounded with non-Christian symbols so as to neuter its religious message.
What’s interesting is that Judge Moore is the first major public figure to take on the Christian bashers unapologetically. It’s refreshing.
Judge Moore could not have been lying because Moore is a God-fearing, bible thunping, evangelical Christian, who follows every one of the Ten Commandments both in letter and in spirit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.