The Decalogue And The Demagogue

Now that the media circus created by Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and his Ten Commandments display has died down, it’s a good time to step back and debunk some oft-repeated Religious Right assertions about this case:

It wasn’t. It was the act of an aspiring theocrat and religious zealot. This country does not have religious courts or anything like them. When you come before a judge, your age, sex, race and religion should be irrelevant. What you believe – or don’t believe – about God should be of absolutely no relevance to the state.

Moore’s display made religion not just relevant but paramount. It sent a message that the Alabama Supreme Court operates from a religious perspective. The state’s highest court had a favorite religious code, carved on a two-ton rock in the rotunda. Courts like that might exist in Iran; they ought to be alien to the United States.

Moore is free to pray and read the Bible on his own in his private office whenever he feels the need. But he does not have the right to endorse any religious code in his official capacity or imply that Alabama courts have even a quasi-official religion.

Moore told a Promise Keepers rally in Atlanta recently that church-state separation is “a fable.” That’s a strong clue revealing what this crusade was really all about: furthering Religious Right attacks on that important constitutional principle and paving the way for fundamentalist government in the United States. Moore’s goal was to advance the Religious Right’s repressive agenda, not acknowledge God.

Wrong. The Ten Commandments are an important moral code to millions of believers, but they are not the foundation of American law. U.S. law does not require citizens to worship only one god, and it does not ban the production of graven images. We do not require citizens to keep the Sabbath holy, force people to honor their parents or punish coveting. We don’t even punish lying, unless it’s in a court proceeding or in some other venue where criminal conduct is involved. (Two of the Commandments ban killing and theft. These prohibitions have been adopted by societies of many religious hues throughout history as common-sense rules for peaceful living.)

Most of the Commandments deal with humankind’s relationship to God. The state has no business regulating this relationship. Who would want to live in a country that mandated worship of God in certain ways? Who would want to live in a nation where people were fined or imprisoned for not going to services on the Sabbath (which day is it anyway?) or for saying something a cleric deemed blasphemous? Moore’s actions not only violate church-state separation, they mislead Americans about the ultimate source of our law. That source is the Constitution – not the Bible or any other religious book.

No display anything like the one in Alabama appears in the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court’s main chamber contains a frieze that depicts great lawgivers throughout history. Moses is part of this frieze. He is depicted holding two tablets, one of which contains some Hebrew letters. The frieze also depicts Hammurabi, Solomon, Confucius, Mohammad, Augustus, Charlemagne, Napoleon and others. The point of this display is educational and artistic, not an endorsement of one religious tradition.

A second high court frieze includes a single tablet with the Roman numerals one through 10 on it. Some Religious Right activists have assumed that this is intended to represent the Ten Commandments. In fact, Adolph Weinman, the sculptor who designed the frieze, stated publicly that the tablet symbolizes the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution – our Bill of Rights.

The Montgomery showdown was telling – and disturbing – for many reasons. It exposed, for example, just how extreme some leaders of the Religious Right are these days. James Dobson of Focus on the Family was not alone in backing Moore’s defiance of the federal courts. Despite all of their “I love America” rhetoric, many in the Religious Right have nothing but contempt for America’s secular democratic government and our system of law.

The imbroglio also underscored that defenders of church-state separation have some work to do. One poll that came out during the showdown indicated that 77 percent of Americans support displaying the Ten Commandments in government buildings. This is a strong warning that our educational efforts have not been as persuasive as they need to be. We ignore that message at our own peril.

Courts are an important line of defense in the battle to maintain church-state separation. But we cannot rely on them to do all of the heavy lifting for us. If the American people do not truly value the wisdom of the founders and appreciate why they demanded that religion and government be separate, eventually Moore and his Religious Right allies will start to win. They could begin remaking this nation to their liking, discarding the legacy of religious freedom.

We all got a glimpse of what a Religious Right-dominated America would look like in Montgomery recently. Our challenge is to make sure it never comes to pass.

How is it in the middle ground? Is not Judge Moore’s placing the Decalogue in the Courthouse rotunda on others who may not share those same beliefs?

No. It is not the equivalent of making a law respecting an establishment of religion which is the only thing the Constitution prohibits.

And if we are going to allow judge Moore ...

We did not allow him to. Alabama State law gives the privilege of choosing decorations for the Rotunda to the Chief Justice. Therefore it is by the rule of law that he chose what he chose.

... to such to achieve equal treatment under the law, or achieve the middle ground does that not mean the with have to also include writings from the Talmud, the Torah, the Koran, and the Sutras? Or do the people who follow those faiths not have the same rights as Christians when it comes to public places?

When the people of Alabama lawfully elect a Chief Justice who wishes to place something from the Talmud, the Torah (the Decalogue?) or the Sutras he/she may do so. What could be fairer?

Freedom of expression for all as protected by the U.S. Constitution, equal representation of the people's will through the elective process where everyone has a vote and a protected privilege of office as proscribed by State law arrived at through the legislature for the dispensation of authority overseeing public properties? This provides the fairest representation of the will of the people through republican principles of democracy. Nothing has been imposed upon anyone. Citizenship in each State and the Union itself is voluntary. All are free to leave any or all States at any time.

There is no right to have one's personal views promoted by the State, or anyone else, just because you have a right to hold any view you wish. There is no right to not be offended because your view is not the most popular view.

Here's hoping you had a great Thanksgiving!

... there is no right for any one group to have their religious symbols posted in public places.

I understand that perfectly. Here are my rebuttals to that position.

1. Judge Moore is not a group he is one person who, as Chief Justice, had the lawful sole authority to choose what to display in the JD Building Rotunda. No single or multiple groups or individuals have the right, privilege or legal sanction to intrude on the Chief Justice's decision. Nor does the Federal Court.

His choice couldn't violate an existing law such as decency laws or safety laws but the fact is the monument violated no existing law. That's, not coincidentally, why no law was cited in any of the rulings on the matter.

2. The people of Alabama have a right, by law, to elect their Chief Justice. Judge Moore was well known as the "Ten Commandments Judge" when they elected him because he had been unsuccessfully challenged twice before for displaying the Decalogue in his courtroom. The whole of the people of Alabama made their choice based on this knowledge.

3. The Decalogue is not a symbol of one religion alone if it is a symbol at all. It is a set of temporal laws held in esteem by three major religions; Jewish, Christian and Muslim. More than that they are, as Judge Myron Thompson himself said, undeniably the source of much of western civil law today. He did not rule for their removal on the basis of their religious symbology and himself asserted that there was nothing wrong with publicly displaying the Decalogue on government property. The problem was clearly that the person who ordered their display actually believed in their divine origin and said so. More precisely Roy Moore said that God was the ultimate authority over men. What a radical thought! Is there some other way to view the concept of "our Creator?"

4. Every citizen has a right to assume the authority of any public office or trust that he/she has earned the privilege of holding and met the lawful requirements thereof irregardless of religious views or religious non-views.

Article. VI., Clause 3;
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This clause confirms that no religious test is required but it does require that the officer or trustee be bound by Oath or Affirmation. Who is that Oath or Affirmation given to? God. That is not a contradiction. A test would be to demand proof of one's belief (which cannot really be proven) or to specify what religion or sect of a religion the Oath is given through. None is ever specified.

What is especially significant to Judge Moore in this clause is what the Oath binds one to do. Support the Constitution. What is the Constitution founded upon? The Declaration of Independence. What does the DoI found its authority upon?

The Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...
Establishes the source of men's Rights; the authority they are founded upon...
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --
Establishes the source of government's "just power."
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ...
Recalls the source of government authority and the source of man's authority to give it.

For those who are willing to read and understand what Judge Moore has said he has stated clearly that the only thing he is doing is recognizing just what I have pointed out above. God is the authority upon which the authority of the Constitution (and thereby the government through men) is founded. He has called it his duty to do so and since he has sworn an Oath to support the Constitution is seems only appropriate to support it by restating its foundational basis. He cites the Alabama Constitution as basing its authority in God's authority too. Even if it didn't do so specifically (and it does) how could any State be a member of the Union of the United States without being under the authority of the U.S. Constitution which derives its authority from God?

You may choose to read more into what Judge Moore has said and done than this but that does not make it so. He has done nothing more than reaffirm his Oath of Office and nothing different than the court that removed him from office which was to open with a prayer to God. As the lawful chooser of Rotunda decorations he chose his favorite set of laws by his favorite lawmaker and included several Founding Father quotes. This is nothing different than another affirmation of the source of Man's Rights. The basis of Constitutional authority as stated by design, by the Founders, in the DoI.

"I fervently invoke the aid of that Almighty Ruler of the Universe in whose hands are the destinies of nations."
James Knox Polk (1795-1849) eleventh President of the United States, expressed these words in his inaugural address in 1845.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

The extent of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution is no more than those words from the 1st Amendment. Apart from the third clause of Article Six, which requires an Oath of Office and prohibits a religious test to hold office, there is nothing more than that. Nothing at all.

No right of equal religious representation or support. No prohibition of speech or religious expression by government officers or trustees. No prohibition of spoken or monetary support of any established religion. (Any religious group or congregation with an ounce of sense would avoid gov. money like the plague IMNHO)

Just; "no law respecting an establishment of religion."

That phrase is important to understand. Although a law might be made by Congress to fund a particular establishment of religion it would not be a law "respecting an establishment." 'Respecting' means 'concerning.' To meet that criteria the law in question would have to make some demand or alteration on the established order of the religion. Unless the religion in question itself had a proscription against outside help or government help such a law would not effect its establishment.

Today the threat is that legitimate free expression and exercise of religion is being suppressed by the federal government of the United States in a manner inconsistent with our Constitution and History.

Therein lies the answer to why this case is about more than a threat to Christianity and more than just a threat to all religion.

... religion is being suppressed by the federal government of the United States in a manner inconsistent with our Constitution and History.

Religion and freedom of speech are being suppressed in this case but the key phrase is "a manner inconsistent with our Constitution and History". The Constitution is what is specifically under attack. Religion will exist whether it is legal or not. The Constitution only exists so long as its principles are understood and upheld. Those principles are consistently being undermined. Once the Constitution is rendered completely impotent and irrelevant it will be replaced.

If Algore had won the election in 2000 the principle of republican elective process would have been overthrown. That would have been severely crippling to the Constitution but not a death blow. The "Roy Moore/Decalogue" case cuts the Constitution off from its root, its initial authority, which was placed in an unamed God, "Our Creator." This was a completely non-sectarian reference to divine authority. Non-sectarian not just in the sense of divisions in Christian theology and not just in the sense of diverse religions but in a whole sense including non-religious and non-deist views. It was a placement of authority above and beyond man's will.

In spite of the fact that Judge Moore is a Christian and in spite of the fact that the Decalogue is the focus of this controversy neither Judge Moore, nor Christianity, nor God, nor the Ten Commandments is in any real peril here. Judge Moore demonstrated this on the personal level by refusing to deny his beliefs for the sake of a job. He lost his job but his core convictions remain untouched. God remains untouched. Christianity is untarnished by this. The Ten Commandments have in no way been altered by this.

The Constitution, however, has been severed from its root. Divine authority. Anything and everything it speaks to and protects is now up for grabs. There is only one replacement for divine authority among men; the rule of men. Those who seek to do this know that and want that.

I for one, a non-Christian, non-Jew, non-deist period do not want that. Without its root in divine authority over man's authority our Constitution is nothing more special than the constitution of the former Soviet Union. No rights at all just privileges of the State. The equality of men has rarely been surpassed as it was there. Religious man and atheist alike were equally subject to the brutality of statist authority. Defy the State on any issue there and the result was the same.

In spite of the imperfections of our Constitution, being instituted by men, and the erosions of its original intent and meaning over time by usurpers it is still the best invention yet created by men to prevent the tyranny of men over men. As long as it exists it offers some protection and has the potential to be perfected. It can only exist as long as it is connected to its ground.

China has millions of Christians. What it doesn't have is law to protect them ... or anyone else.

“The facts are that many of your fellow Freepers- including Jim Robinson -actively support and admire Judge Moore's stance.”

And I am very well aware of those facts, and it is certainly their right to take an opposing view. However if Jim founds my posts overtly offensive then I would assume that he would disable my account, which he has not done and I have been on this site for a few years. He could rest assured that I would not take the time and trouble to change my settings and log in under a new screen name.

However since that has not happened I can only assume that since I tend not to attack others personally that have an opposing view, a trait which you tend not to exhibit, do not use foul language, and try to be respectful of others, he has decided not to do such. Which I did somewhat expect to happen as when I first started using this board I read several allegations by others that if you took an opposing view you got banned from this board. An allegation I have found not to be true, perhaps there were other factors that contributed to their being banned.

However, if you think that Jim is not running his board correctly, perhaps you should appeal to him directly to do something. I will ping others on my ping list that have opposing views to mine so that they may have an opportunity to join you in your appeal.

“The paucity of your opposing view has been shown time and again by your reposting of large blocks of text from atheist sites”

And how you come up with that is beyond my grasp, it must once again be an example of your over active imagination.
“in preference to addressing the points made against you.”

Like I said earlier to you, I do address those post, that bring some meaningful argument to the table, because that would not include post such as yours should not be construed as evidence of a fact since your post do not fall in that category.

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.