Posted on 08/22/2003 4:25:33 AM PDT by kattracks
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's top judge refused to back down in his fight to keep a Ten Commandments monument and lashed out at his colleagues who ordered it removed from the rotunda of the state judicial building."I will never deny the God upon whom our laws and country depend," Chief Justice Roy Moore said in a fiery defense of the 5,300-pound granite marker, as supporters cheered and prayed on the building's steps.
The monument was still in the building's rotunda early Thursday evening, and court officials did not say when or where it would be moved.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, who had ruled the monument's placement violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine, has said it could be moved to a private place still within the building. He had threatened $5,000-a-day fines if Moore left the monument in the public rotunda.
Moore installed the monument two years ago and contends it represents the moral foundation of American law.
"Not only did Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God as well," Moore told his supporters Thursday.
The chief justice had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of the removal order, but the court rejected it Wednesday. Moore said Thursday he would file a formal appeal with the high court soon "to defend our constitutional right to acknowledge God."
"I cannot forsake my conscience," he said.
His supporters, meanwhile, promised to block any effort to remove the monument.
"We will kneel at the doors. We will prevent forklifts or trucks from coming in," said Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, which is organizing around-the-clock demonstrations.
Moore's eight colleagues on the state Supreme Court intervened after Thompson's midnight deadline for removing the monument passed and the monument remained. In ordering the monument moved, the justices said they were "bound by solemn oath to follow the law."
Justice Gorman Houston said all eight instructed building manager Graham George to "take all steps necessary to comply" with the removal order. George declined to comment when asked when, how or where the monument would be moved.
Attorney General Bill Pryor filed a notice with the federal district court after the justices' issued their order and said he believed that would remove any risk of fines.
Taxpayers "should not be punished for the refusal of the chief justice to follow a federal court order," he said.
A partition was put in front of the monument early Thursday but was removed after about three hours. Houston said the building manager may have erected it to comply with the order.
Gov. Bob Riley said in a statement that he supports public displays of the Ten Commandments, but also supports the decision of associate justices to "uphold the rule of law."
In his speech Thursday, Moore said he was "disappointed with my colleagues" and lashed out at "this so-called rule of law" that they cited. He said such blind obedience would have allowed slavery to continue.
Richard Hahnemann of Huntsville, the monument's sculptor, said he expects voters to remember what the justices did come election day.
"They have their opinion. Justice Moore was elected by the people to do what he did," Hahnemann said.
Richard Cohen, an attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center — which sued along with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State — praised the eight justices.
"Their courageous actions reflect that Justice Moore is a disgrace to the bench and ought to resign or be removed from office," Cohen said.
Still, protesters outside the building said they were willing to stand in the Alabama heat and risk arrest for days or weeks to keep the monument inside. Twenty-one were arrested Wednesday night on trespassing charges for refusing to leave the monument when the building was closing.
Stephen Hopkins, pastor of Burnet Bible Church in Burnet, Texas, was one of those arrested. He said he was willing to be arrested even though he has 10 children.
"This is a great hypocrisy," Hopkins said. "This is an assault on God. They're saying we're going to cover up God."
Well, you're right, but from my personal observations--and admittedly I peer in here only sparingly--there's maybe two dozen "true conservatives" on here, with a consistent, limited government, Rule of Law stance.
C'est la vie. When this judge--this low intelligence creature--does things like this, I'm comforted by a quote from Voltaire:
I have but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' God has granted it.
What about what the Alabama courts and attorney general have decided? I guess those parts of it don't fit your equation.
Get FReepers talking on economic matters (especially trade) and then try to show the difference in their stance and Dick Gephardt's. It's all about the evil CEOS oppressing "the little man", you know?
They have caved in on the principle. They seem be looking for a solution and compromise which gets them out of an uncomfortable position.
Who here is forgetting that?
My biggest reason for opposing this (outside of many legal reasons) is that it is in direct disobediance of Biblical commands. All these crusaders don't want to acknowledge that part of the Bible though.
Fine. Whatever. I was posting in response to this comment of yours: "This controversy is not about the 10 Commandments per se but about resisting unbridled Federal judicial activism.
How is it federal judicial activism when Alabama's own courts and attorney general have ruled against Moore on this?
My point was that many of these people doing this are Southern Baptists (and of other denominations of course). Good for the Southern Baptist leader you heard on making the right call here. Like I say, I defend them often, and agree completely with that leader on this one as well. Some of their members are way off on this one though.
Moore makes a case against his monument October 20, 2002
The trial of the lawsuit in Montgomery seeking to remove Chief Justice Roy Moore’s 5,300-pound monument to the Ten Commandments from the state Judicial Building will drag on into this week, but the judge should have little difficulty in making a decision when testimony finally ends.
Moore has made a damning case against his monument.
The chief justice, who took the witness stand on Thursday, came across as exactly the kind of religious zealot that the plaintiffs claim he is. Nothing less than “the future of the nation" rests on his monument, he testified.
Moore said that the washing machine-size monument, which he had installed secretly at midnight, represents a bulwark against what he sees as 40 to 50 years of assault on religious freedom by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court’s decisions have distanced the nation from/sacknowledgment of God, and “without the acknowledgment of God there is a loss of morality," Moore said at the federal court trial in Montgomery.
That is strong evidence of the plaintiffs’ contention that the monument has a religious purpose that violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
But Moore, true to form, didn’t stop there. He said he would not permit Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims to erect monuments to their faiths, because they have nothing to do with what he sees as the moral foundation of law. That foundation, in Moore’s mind, comes from the one true god - his god. The god of any other religion doesn’t meet Moore’s measure.
In another telling bit of testimony, Moore admitted that one of the few people he let in on the secret plans to erect his monument was a Florida TV preacher, D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries. Kennedy had a crew film the installation. Today, he peddles a videotape of it for $19 a pop.
Moore’s defense will spend much of this week talking about moral law and the Ten Commandments, but that isn’t the issue. The legal case against the monument is a slam-dunk. Federal law is clear.
Moore, who is using private money to finance his/sdefense, may face a stiffer judgment. If he loses in U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson’s court, as expected, he will appeal to the Supreme Court - ironically, the same court he accuses of eroding the nation’s moral values.
It’s an expensive proposition, but it will offer Moore’s backers a chance to sell a lot more videotapes. If the court hears the case, Moore will get another national stage to advocate his theocratic views. ************ A demagogue of exquisite talent, indeed.
heheh. As a Southern Baptist myself, I can say they often need it. :-)
That's a fair question.
This is an issue of Federal judges making law from the bench on a subject which Congress has been specifically prohibited from making law by the First Amendment. Therefore, no decree by a Federal judge on this subject has force of legitimate law behind it, only their own judicial precedent and interpretation via their own constuct.
This is a genuine States Rights matter under the 10th Amendment. Congress has no say in the matter. Unless it is Congress trying to set up a specific Sect as a State Religion neither do Federal judges. This is just a huge power grab by unelected Federal judges. Calling this situation "obeying the law" is no different than having a Federal judge ordering you without trial to a concentration camp and then having everyone in the enforcement chain obey the order because they are "obeying the law". There is no applicable law. It is Judicial Tyranny, pure and simple. They are trying to cloak it in the words of the First Amendment, which says precisely the opposite!
There is no Federal law saying Alabama can't post whatever they wish in their own Courthouse - only Federal Judicial fiat which goes against the very words and meaning of the Constitution. Judge Moore stands on solid Constitutional grounds. The Feds are being exposed, not just in this but in their entire long, miserable train of usurptions in this matter. This entire controvery over religion in the public square started in 1962 when the Supreme Court threw prayer out of public schools. They have been making similar law out of the same phony whole cloth ever since. Before this, there was little controvery on such matters.
This sort of judicial tyranny is a threat to all our freedoms, not just "freedom of religion". I'm surprised you can't see that.
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.