Posted on 09/01/2003 12:16:40 PM PDT by quidnunc
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's pugnacious campaign to make the Ten Commandments the rock on which to build his view of church-state relations in America is almost over.
On Wednesday in Montgomery, a moving company shifted the 5,300-pound monument from the Alabama Judicial Building's rotunda to another area of the building, and the state's attorney general predicted it would be removed entirely by the end of the week.
The judge's effort to redraw the line between church and state has struck a responsive chord among evangelical Christians hungry for a champion in the nation's "culture war," but it was doomed, even conservative attorneys say.
"You can't ethically advise your client to disobey a court's order, no matter how much you disagree with the order," said Matt Staver, of Liberty Counsel, a Longwood firm specializing in church-state issues.
The controversy over the Ten Commandments in Alabama evolved into a test of sovereignty between the federal government and one state judge, with a preordained outcome. But, in a larger sense, it is the latest round of a 200-year debate on the division between government and religion.
Installation of the monument in the summer of 2001 provided a rallying point for those who think religion should be front and center in public life — and that Christianity is under assault.
"I do think it's part of the larger culture war," said David T. Morgan, retired professor of history at the University of Montevallo in Alabama.
"So many people in this state are convinced that the country is going to hell, and here's a man who is standing up for old-time religion and old-time values," said Morgan, author of The New Crusades, the New Holy Land: Controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention, 1969-1991.
At the same time, the Ten Commandments controversy provided a target for those who think the line of separation between church and state is being blurred.
The Rev. Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the monument's removal "a tremendous victory for the rule of law and respect for religious diversity."
Partisans on both sides are working from the same texts, starting with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
However, there is considerable disagreement on the meaning of the texts.
Moore's supporters argue that the passage was written by the Founding Fathers to avoid giving one Christian denomination favored or official status. Because most of the framers were at least nominal Christians, his supporters say, they assumed they were creating a Christian nation. Thus, evangelicals maintain that removing the monument is, in effect, abridging the free exercise of religion.
Moore's opponents rely on President Thomas Jefferson, who provided his interpretation of the passage in a letter to the Danbury, Conn., Baptist Association on Jan. 1, 1802.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God," the president wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
Recently, the Rev. Jerry Falwell has dismissed Jefferson's explanation of the separation of church and state as a "shadowy phrase culled from a letter."
But Robert Parham, director of the Baptist Center for Ethics in Nashville, sharply disagreed.
Parham said Jefferson "clearly interpreted the religious liberty clause in the First Amendment to mean the separation of church and state."
The federal courts consistently have agreed with Jefferson's interpretation. They also have ruled that where the Constitution says "Congress" in the First Amendment, the passage applies to all arms of government — federal, state and local.
-snip-
Where should the line of separation be drawn between church and state?
"The answer lies somewhere between the extremists who want to impose Christian values, mainly Protestant, on everyone else, and their secular counterparts, who want to ban religion completely from public life and make it a purely private matter," said Steinmetz.
"This society will accept neither extreme. What we need to do is what we are doing; we need to argue it out. The good news is that we live in a robust democracy. It will survive this disagreement."
(Excerpt) Read more at centredaily.com ...
The First Amendment has several clauses invovled. The clauses acknowledging the inalienable individual rights of man are undoubtedly incorporated by the 14th Amendment to the states.
The establishment clause, a restraint on the Federal gov't, was never meant to be incorporated. However, if you don't believ me research the 15 attempts by Congress to amend the First to include the states. It failed each time.
But that's neither here nor there because the original intent of the First Amendment was never to build a "Wall of Separation". A rudimentary knowledge of the history of America, it's founders and the debate on the First Amendment while states had established religions would confirm that, no?
Do you believe that the current SCOTUS will rule that the First Amendment does not apply to the states, specifically to a state supreme court justice?
Absolutely not. I believe there are 5 votes on this court to find a right to transcendent rights to whatever they can dream up.
Justice Stephens to Justice Ginsburg:
Ruthie, have you found any precedent for banning the voluntary recitation of the POA with the words "under God" included?
No Jean Paul, can't seem to find it anywhere in the Constitution or original intent per se, doggonitt!
That's OK Ruthie, we'll just find it in the 14th like we usually do!
Ohhhhhhhh Jean Paul, you're the man!!!!
Now there is a real Christian statement for you. Of course, if one of us on the other end of the ideological divide had called Moore that, we'd expect hordes of angry, hurt posters slamming the abuse button.
I believe that the 14th Amendment made the provisions of the Constitution applicable to all governmental entities at every level.
The federal courts have ruled on the subject therefore the question is stare decisis until SCOTUS renders another decision.
Roy's rock is a cooked goose, so it's time to accept reality and move on.
You got the wrong guy Pal. I'm a sinner, always have been. I do my best but have never quite gotten my arms around the turning of the cheek thing for one.
So save your moral indignation for somebody who is not wont to smack you back.
HEAR HEAR!(I couldn't have said it any better!)
FMCDH
Like Bowers?
Once the federal courts take power away from the states, they are relunctant to give it back; that seems to be the mindset of both conservative and liberal justices in the SCOTUS.
IMO, we will need to confirm at least three more solid conservative justices to the SCOTUS while keeping the current conservatives; these freshmen must take the lead and not follow the current justices if the states have any chance of getting back some of the usurped powers.
Congress doesn't have the heart or soul do take them on.
Hence, the frustration that you rightfully see from me.
Bowers was settled law UNTIL a new court said it wasn't. The issue is judicial activism, ergo its' relevance.
So save your moral indignation for somebody who is not wont to smack you back.
I'm with you. I'll "turn my cheek" when it comes to foolish words and asinine thoughts...but when the attack is on my core beliefs, beware.
FMCDH
Ah yes, but are you one of those wingnut cranks who would rather vote for some lunatic-fringe candidate on 'principle' rather than voting for an electable Republican who actually might be able to get conservative judges appointed and confirmed?
If so then in my opinion you have no standing to complain.
LOL. Here at FR I have run the gamut from statist to wingnut. I vote and will always vote in the primaries for pro life, pro gun, pro constituion and pro America candidates. In the general elections I have always voted for the candidate closes to those views with a chance of being elected.
If so then in my opinion you have no standing to complain.
Just goes to show what some opinions are worth.
:-}
The pro-death crowd are annoyed by "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Help us call and email or a simple prayer for Terri would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Get up to speed by doing a search under Terri Schiavo. FV
Your cronies have been making it repeatedly here on FR.
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.