“Justice Moore would make a great official of the Inquisition”
Rev. Barry W. Lynn
In his defense of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore’s refusal to remove the four-foot, 5,280-pound granite monument engraved with the Ten Commandments from his courthouse, Reverend Jerry Farwell suggested if Judge Moore was following what he perceived as a calling from [his] god, his actions were totally justified.
Despite boisterous contentions that the Ten Commandments represent the primary foundation of our legal system, the Chief Justice’s real motives became crystal clear when, at the unveiling of the monument, he explicitly rejected all religious and non-religious traditions in America other than Christianity and Judaism. Such a thinly disguised attempt to proselytize and intimidate individuals holding differing beliefs may be appropriate in houses of worship, private assemblies or even door-to-door outreach campaigns, but it has no place being carried on by elected officials in their public capacities.
If, as argued, our admittedly imperfect Constitution was grounded in the Ten Commandments and other historic and religious documents, then each of them was also flawed. However, unconstrained by the infallibility associated with religious dogma, our Constitution was designed to be dynamic and able to be amended to permit our secular society, the majority of whose citizens hold strong moral and religious convictions, to remedy its social and other inequities. Further, when trying to position the Ten Commandments as other than a religious document, history and language become pesky inconveniences.
Forgetting Moses ostensibly received two somewhat dissimilar sets of Commandments, having smashed the first in a fit of anger when his people opted to worship a golden calf, which version of the Ten Commandments is Ray Moore referring to? Clearly, his bias is evident as his monument is engraved with the text from the King James Bible, which differs from both the Catholic and Hebrew scriptures.
Those opposed to Justice Moore’s actions point out the first four Commandments are strictly theological which, if codified into legal edicts, would run afoul of our freedoms of speech, religion and association guaranteed under the First Amendment and the right of equal protection afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Then there is the issue of interpreting the text of the Ten Commandments. Conservative activists find it convenient to construe its language in the context of modern semantics.
The remaining six Commandments define a number of moral principals whose modern contexts have been, at least in part, independently adopted by secularists and followers of most other religions throughout history, many predating the time the Ten Commandments were purportedly passed down to Moses. However, the original intent of some of these Commandments differs sharply with contemporary interpretations.
Specifically, with respect to the sixth Commandment, the admonition against “killing” is not unique to Christianity but evolved in some qualified manner in nearly every ancient and modern civilization. Curiously, the word ratsach in the original Hebrew text meant “murder” but was translated by the authors of the King James Bible to “kill”. Does that then justify killing if one doesn’t murder? If so, perhaps it explains why state-sponsored killings can be easily rationalized and condoned.
The eighth Commandment initially addressed but a single type of theft, kidnapping a person for the purpose of forcing or selling them into slavery. Only centuries later was the meaning expanded to include all types of stealing.
The prohibition against “coveting” possessions of another evolved from a patriarchal society in which women were considered little more than property of their husbands or fathers and manservants were simply slaves. Both concepts have been socially condemned and constitutionally eliminated. More importantly, simply coveting or wanting something owned by another is not necessarily evil, given a legal means of obtaining it, and, in fact, provides an underlying concept of free market capitalism.
When Justice Moore took his oath of office, he swore to support and defend the Constitution of the State of Alabama that he knew was subservient to the U.S. Constitution. If that affirmation and its implications were going to be in conflict with his personal religious convictions, he had a moral obligation to withdraw from assuming an office for which he knew he could not fully perform his duty. To consciously use his judicial office as a platform to promote his personal morality is in contravention to his oath of office and legal precedent and threatens confidence in the neutrality of our legal system.
He has defied district and appellate court rulings, a defacto concurrence to those decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the unanimous agreement of his eight fellow justices on the Alabama Supreme Court. Moreover, his actions are potentially costing Alabama taxpayers up to $5,000 for each day the monument remains in the rotunda. One is left to wonder how Justice Moore would react if people in his court ignored his judicial orders.
Chief Justice Moore has stated, “It is not about religion. It is about the acknowledgement of God as the foundation of our moral law“. A supporter, Texas minister Stephen Hopkins, fumed that the court’s action was, “An assault on God.” Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes said, “It’s time to take back … the freedom to live in communities that reflect our beliefs”. Other of Moore’s supporters have found their fifteen minutes of fame in front of the national media and made similar pronouncements.
Most appalling is a recent amendment passed by a 261-161 vote of the U.S. House of Representatives that would prevent the expenditure of any federal funds to remove the monument as the federal courts have ordered. How can these elected representatives square such a vote with their solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”?
Roy Moore, Jerry Farwell, Stephen Hopkins, Alan Keyes, 261 members of Congress and scores of other Christian activists simply don’t get it!
No one, specifically including the Supreme Court, has thrown any road blocks in their ability to believe as they wish, worship their god in accordance with their interpretation of their scriptures, bow their heads and quietly pray when and as their conscience dictates or display and discuss the Ten Commandments in their homes, offices, churches, synagogues, mosques, other private locations and at even public rallies.
Further, if one’s belief in God truly represents a personal relationship with their creator, no legislation or court decision can alter such a spiritual bond. They and their fellow religious travelers have the inalienable right to continue believing as before and reach out to spread their gospel to whomever they wish, including attributions that their deity provided the sole basis for our current legal system.
What they cannot do, however, is use the power and resources of our federal, state and local governments to assist them in such initiatives. Ours was established as, and remains, a secular society, not a theocracy. The fact that a vast majority of Americans hold a wide array of sometimes-conflicting Christian beliefs does not empower them to impose such viewpoints and values on others who subscribe to differing belief systems. Moreover, our communities must continue to reflect a diversity of traditions and beliefs even if not everyone subscribes to all the values represented … and not become bastions of enforced conformity and intolerance.
The misguided justifications of Justice Moore’s disregard for the legal system of which he is a part by Jerry Farwell and others suggests they lack an understanding of and appreciation for both our Constitution, the liberties it guarantees and our legal institutions which provide the real basis of our free and increasingly pluralistic society.
Permitting individuals to pick and choose which laws to obey based on a personal and subjective understanding of their individual faith is an invitation to social anarchy and potentially represent a clear and present danger to society. Have they such short memories that they have forgotten what nineteen Islamic fundamentalists did just two years ago in the name of their god?
