Battle Over Commandments Monument Part of Larger 'Culture War'

The Centre Daily Times [College Station, PA] ^ | August 27, 2003 | Mark I. Pinsky [The Orlando Sentinel]

[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."

[jwalsh07]

I thought we had a gentlemans agreement not to post to one another.

[lugsoul]

Fair enough. It was just a rare moment of agreement for us - that Roy's Rock is not at all similar to the frieze in SCOTUS.

[jwalsh07]

Fair enough. It was just a rare moment of agreement for us - that Roy's Rock is not at all similar to the frieze in SCOTUS.

This crap is exactly why I don't care to debate you. You're not an honest fellow, not evena little bit.

Adios.

[lugsoul]

I take it from the tone of your post that you consider the argument you called "a losing argument if there ever was one" to be completely accurate factually. Perhaps the "winning arguments" you have in mind are less accurate. Adios.

[jwalsh07]

I take it that you're a weasel who uses weasel words, half truths and outright lies to stake out his position. We all take it as we get it Luggy.

Now if you want to cancel the agreement I'd be happy to whip your ass yet again. It must grate on guys like you that blue collar guys like me can actually read and comprehend English.

Good.

[lugsoul]

"yet again"

That's a laugh. You still have a question pending on the table. Bingham and Howard, remember?

Until you deal with that, we can just keep the agreement going. Tough talk, though. I like that.