August 22, 2003
In God We, ahh... Well, Most of us... Trust
There’s a First Amendment battle brewing, and it involves Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, The U.S. Supreme court, and a granite monument depicting the Ten Commandments, in front of a courthouse. The scene is reminiscent of a movie in which Charlton Heston, in a dingy robe and sandals and sporting a white beard, screamed that those monkey people should keep their damn dirty hands off his stone tablets, or something to that effect (in my version Heston then busts out an Uzi and goes all NRA on the primates). In the world of Justice Moore, he too is yelling at the monkeys, and waving his Bible high above himself in order to smite down the unbelievers who would dare ask him to remove his precious rock.
America's roots can be traced back a through a history and culture that has been predominantly Christian. And while some of that history now seems exceptionally foul (the Salem witch trials and small-scale persecutions), for the most part religion has been beneficial to the order and civility of this country. My own religious abdication aside, I think the rest of you should be free to worship however you want. You're free to walk down the sidewalk with Jesus on a crucifix or put His face on a box of Wheaties, it honestly would not offend me or lead me to convert.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", that's the exact wording our founding fathers used. It was meant to keep one religion from dominating the government over the others, such as the Church of England (the official church). The pilgrims, mostly Protestants, fled from the religious persecution of England in order to practise their religious beliefs more freely (which I've heard did not involve stone monuments). Fast forward a bit, and that was the basis for that first line of the First Amendment. Those document crafters were also highly religious men (except Jefferson, who was a fraudulent Christian, but don't mind him).
In the spirit of the First Amendment, any religious groups who stepped forward should have equal space on the courthouse lawn. Instead of ordering Justice Roy Moore to remove the monument, they should have asked the community to contribute more monuments, and displayed them, without prejudice. Be as it may, the prevailing theme of freedom of religion in these times is that we have a freedom from religion. As a firm believer of the Constitution and all that contains, we should allow the Honorable Moore to keep his silly monument; And perhaps someone will put a golden calf beside it.
Now what is wrong, and rather annoying, is the circumstances under which the monument was placed: Justice Moore had the bohemoth surreptitiously plopped down in the middle of one night, as though a seed of religion had sprouted from the ground on its own. It would have been more palatable if the state legislature had voted to allow religious artifacts to be displayed on its property rather than to see it circumscribed in such a manner. For this, the Justice should be punished.
Posted by Stephen VanDyke at August 22, 2003 01:42 AMAgreed. Freedom from religion was never the intent of the constitution. Good article Stephen.
Posted by: Nick at August 22, 2003 10:16 AMThe monument violates the spirit and the letter of the U.S. Constitution and should be removed. Judge Moore is a sanctimonious, pompous backside of a donkey and should be impeached! His supposition that the 9th and 10th Amendment supports his positions is a minority one at best. Even the other justices on HIS own court agree unanimously that he is wrong, and have called for the removal of the granite edifice to Moore’s ego.
And Stephen, not to throw stones, but let us not forget slavery, Jim Crow, Institutionalize racism, lynching, murder, ethnic cleansing, all behaviors and practices endorsed or ignored by Christians in these United States. Religion has not always served this country well!
I think the “thief in the night”placement of the rock shows Moore new exactly what he was doing and that it was wrong.
Freedom “of” not “from” religion is a good argument, but that’s not really the issue here.
The issue is, that a law maker in a law-making building, should not have the rules of a religion, which are *not* the rules of this land, on display.
Remember the thread about Ginsburg consulting international law? Well, why should a judge represent that he consults the law of his religion and applies it to all men in a country that is free of a single, recognized religion?
I think that’s the real issue.
Rob
BTW - in my movie, Heston goes all Uzi *on* the NRA. NRA, primates… same thing, I guess. ;-)
Posted by: Robbie D at August 22, 2003 12:39 PMYour analysis completely misses the point that this is government action. The scene in Alabama has nothing to do with whether individuals can practice their religion.
Posted by: Only Connect at August 22, 2003 01:31 PMRobbie,
Well I suppose I am a primate then. This really sucks because I used to like having thumbs.
Don’t forget that there about one in five Americans describes themselves as atheist, agnostic, or having no religion. If the Ten Commandments and a golden calf go up there, then could we also have a summary of The Case Against God?
And if not, why not?
Posted by: Thomas Scott at August 22, 2003 02:42 PMNote to self: the Preview button is your friend.
Posted by: Thomas Scott at August 22, 2003 02:43 PMI think the real question for Moore is what he would do if he were an associate justice on that court, and the Buddhist Chief Justice placed a large golden Buddha in the middle of the state rotuna. Would he argue that the Buddha should stay in recognition of the Chief’s rights? Would he be against the Buddha for First Amendment reasons? Would he be against it because only the Christian God is worthy of official sanction in America?
The only way he could be logically constitent is the first approach, but I doubt he’d take it. I’m sure he’d use a combination of the second and third approaches. Either way, his behavior is unconstitutional and immature.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 22, 2003 06:18 PMI guess I have my answer:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/ten.commandments/index.html
“Asked on CNN whether he would support an Islamic monument to the Koran in the rotunda of the federal building, Moore replied, “This nation was founded upon the laws of God, not upon the Koran. That’s clear in the Declaration [of Independence], so it wouldn’t fit history and it wouldn’t fit law.”
Comparative religion is a weakness among many Christians and Muslims, thus leading to the faulty assumption that the God of the Koran is a different God than that of the Bible. Both religions have the same monotheistic god with the same origins in historical text. Each defines god as omiscient, omnipresent, and personal (meaning capable and willing to intervene in the affairs of this world).
Each religion also wants to point out that the Devil is in the details of the other’s religion. Quite funny, were it not for all of the millions who have died over the centuries felled by such devilish points of difference.
Posted by: DRRemer at August 24, 2003 10:26 PM
