THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

Exactly what is involved in
the "Judge Moore" conflict?

Sponsored link.

Read about the Chief Justice Moore case:
up to 2003-JUL, 2003-AUG, the rest of 2003, 2004 and after

Quotation:

The Ten Commandments and the U.S. Constitution:

The Ten Commandments (a/k/a. Decalogue) can be freely displayed almost anywhere in the U.S.: in and around private homes, in businesses, in offices, etc. However, it cannot be shown by itself in public parklands, government offices, public schools, etc. With very few exceptions, courts have repeatedly ruled that if the Decalogue cannot be shown in isolation. That would be a violation of the principle of separation of church and state which is contained within the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The separation principle involved three concepts:

Placing the Ten Commandments in a public school room or in the rotunda of a Justice Building would violate the first two of the above criteria: It would promote Judaism and Christianity over other religions. (Recall that almost half of the Ten Commandments refer to the necessity of worshiping Yahweh alone.) Its presence in a government building would also promote a religious lifestyle over a secular lifestyle. It would also give the impression that the courts are Judeo-Christian institutions. Non-Judeo-Christians might well be concerned about the possibility of them receiving justices at the hands of such courts.

However, the exhibition of the Decalogue would be constitutional if it appears as one element in a cultural display -- a grouping of religious and secular legal documents.

In most cases, court rulings are respected and implemented quickly. However, after Chief Justice Roy Moore he was ordered to remove the granite monument containing the Decalogue in the Justice Building in Mongomery, AL, he refused to comply.

Why does the U.S. Constitution require separation of church and state?

Briefly, when the Constitution was written, its authors were well aware of the evils and massive loss of human life that had been experienced in Europe in prior centuries because of inter- and intra-religious conflict. They reasoned that the best way to avoid importing religiously-based hatred, oppression, mass murder and genocide into the New World was to separate church and state, religion and government, into two separate entities with a minimum of interaction.

What are Chief Justice Moore's legal arguments?

He has argued that:

1. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to the actions of state officials. This was initially true. The First Amendment was originally written to limit only the powers of Congress. In fact the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment starts: "Congress shall make no law...." However the U.S. Supreme Court has traditionally interpreted the Amendment as also applying to "other branches of government and government officials." ₂ The Supreme Court has held for many decades that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed after the Civil War, widens the application of the First Amendment to include all state and local governments.
2. The presence of the Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the Justice Building is constitutional. i.e. it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Numerous court decisions, including some by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- the court that ordered Chief Justice Moore to remove the monument -- have established that the Ten Commandments is a religious document. If it is displayed by itself in a public school or in a federal, state or municipal government building, or on government property anywhere, it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it has no secular purpose. Thus, the presence of the monument in the building rotunda is unconstitutional. Chief Justice Moore appears to have acknowledged that the monument has no secular purpose. At a recent rally he said: "This case is not about a monument and not about politics. It’s about the acknowledgement of God." In his closing arguments before the 11th Circuit Court, he said: "Can the state acknowledge God?’ ... Indeed, we must acknowledge God because our constitution says our justice system is established upon God. For him to say that I can’t say who God is, is to disestablish the justice system of this state." ₃
   
   The courts have also established that the Ten Commandments can legally form part of a cultural display if it is combined with documents and artifacts from a variety of religions and from secular sources. But it seems to have been the intent of Chief Justice Moore to display the monument in isolation, perhaps implying that it is the sole origin of America's laws.
3. The Federal Courts, specifically the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, does not have the authority to order him, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, to remove the monument. This argument recalls the conflict in Little Rock, AR, when Governor Faubus blocked the door of a school house, attempting to impose state law in contradiction of a court order to integrate the schools. He, and the governors of some other Southern states, argued that the federal courts had no authority to order them to desegregate their schools. "In each case, the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, principally relying upon the supremacy clause of the Constitution. That clause makes federal law supreme over conflicting state law." ₂

While Chief Justice Moore's arguments may gain a great deal of support among fellow Southerners who might wish that they are valid, it is extremely unlikely that any would be accepted by an American court today.

Who is involved in the conflict?

The conflict over the Ten Commandments monument appears to be fueled by many factions:

Exactly what principles are involved in the conflict?

It is important to understand precisely what is involved in this case:

What does the Bible say about obeying governments and courts?

Jerry Falwell, and other speakers at the 2003-AUG rally appear to recommend that Judge Moore and the public at large refuse to obey the rulings of the court. The Montgomery Advertiser, in its coverage of the rally, noted: "A common belief among people interviewed at the rally was that Moore has a right to civilly disobey a federal judge's orders if they (sic) believe God's law is supreme." This belief appears to conflict with several passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Christian Scriptures (New Testament) which state that it is a citizen's duty to obey the magistrate:

On another note, Exodus 20:4 states: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." This is the first of the Ten Commandments, according to Roman Catholic church and some Lutheran denominations. It is the second Commandment according to other Christian denominations and Jews. A good case can be made that the monument installed by Chief Justice Moore can be considered a religious "graven image." It is a likeness of the Bible -- a "thing" that is on the earth. It is ironic that the creation of a monument to the Ten Commandments may be considered forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments.

Reference used:

1. Michael Newdow, "Judge Roy Moore deserves Jail," Beliefnet.com, 2003-AUG, at: http://www.beliefnet.com/
2.  M. Casey Mattox, "Why Roy Moore Lost. Is the removal of the monument the tragedy that some will consider it?," Rutherford Institute, at:  http://www.beliefnet.com/
3. "Alabama Attorney General attempts Coup D'état against Chief Justice Moore," Vision forum, 2003-AUG-20, at: http://www.visionforum.com/

Related essays on this site

Copyright © 2003 & 2004 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2002-AUG-24
Latest update: 2004-AUG-08
Author: B.A. Robinson