A Monument to Silliness
 |
Commandments monument inside the Alabama Judicial Building. - Photo by Kevin Glackmeyer, Montgomery Advertiser |
|
Commandments monument inside the Alabama Judicial Building. - Photo by Kevin Glackmeyer, Montgomery Advertiser |
It's Labor Day, 2003, after an unseasonably hot summer, so it is perhaps not surprising that some otherwise reasonably intelligent people would succumb to the heat and start saying and doing things about which the Three Stooges or Marx Brothers never would have dreamed! The latest entry for top honors in the silly season contest is Alabama supreme court Chief Justice "Redneck Roy" Moore's installation of a monument to the Ten Commandments in the Alabama State Judicial Building. The monument also bears quotes such as "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," "In God We Trust," "One Nation Under God;" and "So Help Me God." Justice Moore himself helped sneak the 5280 pound graven image (which came to be known as "Roy's Rock") into the rotunda of the building in the dead of night. He proudly displayed it an example of his belief that the Ten Commandments are the basis of all law, including the ones he is called upon to interpret, and that having a monument to God somehow acknowledges the dedication of the United States in general and the State of Alabama in particular to Baptist Christianity and the supremacy of the Almighty, a demonstrably false assertion that Redneck Roy holds with, um, religious fervor.
The "God" part triggered the Southern Poverty Law Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama to file petitions with the US District Court to remove the monument. They claimed that it violated the prohibition of the First Amendment by associating a blatantly religious symbol with a place where the Government defined the law. Federal Judge Myron Thompson agreed that this particular religious monument created "a consecrated place, a religious sanctuary, within the walls of the courthouse," and ordered it removed to a less conspicuous location. The majority don't disagree with Judge Thompson's finding, just his order. Justice Moore vowed to keep the monument in place, stating, among other remarkable things, that he would be guilty of treason if he didn't keep on fighting the federal court decision. Thousands rallied to his defense, even after the 11th US Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court refused to block the lower court ruling. These thousands didn't include the other eight associate justices of the Alabama supreme court, who voted to override the chief justice, charge him with half a dozen ethics violations, suspend him from office, and to remove the monument to another part of the building in obedience of the federal order. Finally, as about a hundred protesters prayed, wept and engaged in other religious practices, the monument was moved. It's still in the building, you just can't see it anymore.
But that didn't end the matter. Apparently in sympathy for a fellow former segregationist state, the governors of both North Carolina and Mississippi volunteered to move the argument to their states by taking the monument off Justice Moore's hands. Moore, however, isn't budging, claiming that he could not in good conscience violate his oath of office by obeying a federal court order.
Apparently, most Americans agree with him. Various polls indicate that as many as 80 percent of the citizenry thinks that Moore is right, Thompson is wrong, and the monument should stay where it was. Like I said, it's been unseasonably hot this summer.
You used to be able to read about it in the Montgomery Advertiser, but it's not news anymore. Good riddance!
I figured that my Church would have a position on this, and so it does, sort of. Except for a few loud-mouthed rabble-rousers, post-Vatican-II Catholic clergy prefer to avoid public controversy, so I haven't been surprised that it hasn't been addressed from the pulpit where I go to church. But this seems very much to be a religious issue, and a decent respect for the truth, to say no more, requires that someone take a stab at publishing the Catholic view. This is mine.
The latest official, Vatican-approved Catholic position on religious freedom can be found in the "Declaration on Religious Freedom," Dignitatis Humanae, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965, Pearl Harbor Day. It can perhaps best be summarized in Paragraph 10, which states in part:
"It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will."A prior statement says:
"It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion... Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection."There's a whole lot more, but this is the main idea. You can almost hear James Madison applauding!
Madison, you will remember, is the author of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which reads in part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"There are two separate and distinct ideas here:
(1) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..." [Establishment Clause],The Fourteenth Amendment, passed to resolve some of the legal ambiguities associated with the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, says, in part:
(2) "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [Free Exercise Clause]"
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"What this says, for those who are still having trouble with English, is that Congress cannot establish a specific religion [Establishment Clause], or prevent you from exercising your own religion, whatever it might be [Free Exercise Clause]. Note that the First Amendment does not use the phrase, "separation of church and state." This came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, in which he explained the meaning of the First Amendment to some folks who were still having trouble with it.
The second notable mention of the phrase "separation of church and state" came in the 1947 Supreme Court case, Everson v. Board of Education. The plaintiff argued that the New Jersey law that reimbursed parents for the cost of bus transportation -- to public and religious schools -- violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court said that it did not. In effect, the Court ruled that the process of riding the bus to school, in itself, is not a religious act. In the majority opinion, Justice Black wrote that the Establishment Clause created a "complete separation between the state and religion." His opinion also outlined a number of principles (broken into sections for clarification) which have evolved into the "Establishment Clause legal precedent:" The "establishment of religion" clause means at least this:
(1) Neither a state or a government can set up a church.What Justice Black did not say was that the United States Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over this issue due to the fact that the First Amendment separates church and state. He didn't say it because it isn't true. The First Amendment is part of the Constitution, which it is the sworn function of the Supreme Court to interpret. I don't like some of their decisions either, but at least they are doing what we pay them for.(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force nor influence a person to go or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt, to teach or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.
This takes care of one of the arguments of Justice Moore's supporters, that religion is a state matter over which the federal government has no jurisdiction and Judge Thompson should butt out. No less an illustrious figure than Alan Keyes, the US. ambassador under President Ronald Reagan to the United Nations Social and Economic Council, holds this view. He claims that Redneck Roy's actions were not civil disobedience, but strict observance to the rule of law. I don't make this stuff up, folks. This is what the man said in the Vision Forum
"The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' Since there can be no Federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the Federal Government, including the courts, to act in this area. Moreover, the tenth amendment to the Constitution plainly states that 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' This means that the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, having been explicitly withheld from the United States, is reserved to the states or to the people. Taken together, therefore, the first and tenth amendments reserve the power to address issues of religious establishment to the different states and their people."I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that what this guy is saying is that the State of Mississippi can force me to worship a pile of dog poop and the federal government can't do a thing about it. What law school did he graduate from, anyway? One wonders what Mr. Keyes, a black presidential candidate wannabe, would have to say on the authority of the federal judges over state segregation of schools, since education is not a federal function, either. (You can read my analysis of their thinking here, and the facts of the matter here.)
Another argument advanced by the Moore brigade is essentially that the United States is a Christian country and therefore it is only patriotic to have a monument featuring a Protestant interpretation that substitutes a list of Ten Commandments based on Jewish Scripture, in an American courthouse. This is exactly the opposite of what Everson v. Board decided. There are some very nice officially Christian countries out there, but the United States isn't one of them. If you want to live in a Christian country, move to England or Vatican City. The United States is no more a Christian country than it is a Jewish country or a Muslim country or a Hindu country. The United States doesn't have a religion, not unlike a bald eagle. You may not believe it, you may not like it, but that's the way the First Amendment says it is.
This isn't the first time the question of monuments and Ten Commandments in public places has come up. The three most applicable decisions, in my opinion are:
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). On June 28th, 1971, the Court unanimously (7 to 0) determined that the direct government assistance to religious schools was unconstitutional. This decision created the three-part "Lemon test" for determining violations of the Establishment Clause. To avoid a violation, an activity must meet the following criteria:
(1) have a secular purpose;
(2) not advance or inhibit religion (in principle or primary effect);
(3) not foster excessive entanglement between the government and religion.Stone v. Graham (1980). The Court struck down a Kentucky law requiring public schools to post the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom in the state. The court ruled that even if the schools hope for the Ten Commandments to be viewed through a secular framework, their historical and religious basis makes them irrefutably religious.
Lynch v. Donnelly (1983) Petitioners brought a suit against the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island claiming that a display owned and operated by the government and including religious scenes violated the Establishment Clause because it clearly sponsored religion. The Court ruled 5 to 4 that the city could continue to display a nativity scene as part of its Christmas display. The city's inclusion of the creche in its Christmas display had a legitimate secular purpose in recognizing "the historical origins of this traditional event long [celebrated] as a National Holiday," and that its primary effect was not to advance religion.
It seems to me that Justice Moore's arguments are the same ones struck down in Stone v. Graham. The monument clearly fails items (1) and (2) of the Lemon test.
Another argument is that most Americans are Christians whose religion somehow advocates the display of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama supreme court. Moving the monument therefore denies their free exercise clause rights of freedom of religion for which there has so far been no hard evidence. I have to admit that, although this strikes me as preposterous, I can't refute it. I can tell you with absolute certainty that my religion does not say that, but then only about one third of the Christians in the United States are Catholics, and not even all of them agree with what our church teaches, even though it's extensively written down. Most of those who consider members of my religion to be agents of Satan point to the Bible as their source of inspiration and doctrine, but I can't find it. I have looked in the Authorized (King James) Version I got from the Gideons in my Army days, the New American Catholic Edition I got at confirmation, the Jerusalem Bible I use for research, and the New American Bible, Revised Edition, at the National Council of Catholic Bishops' website. I can find nothing, absolutely nothing, that says one must display the Ten Commandments in the Alabama supreme court to be saved. If some good evangelistic soul out there can tell me where the Bible says that, it would be a work of Christian charity to e-mail me and set me straight.
(Incidentally, I found a whole slew of stuff about not putting other things before God, not worshipping images, not swearing falsely, taking a day off once a week to acknowledge the supremacy of the Almighty, honoring one's parents, not killing each other, sleeping only with someone one is married to, respecting other people's property, telling the truth, and not desiring what you can't have, but nobody seems to be at all concerned about those things!)
My favorite argument is that the whole brouhaha is not about the monument at all, that it is about taking God out of our society or government or country or whatever. Justice Moore seems to feel that the federal Government has been working on that for years. I don't know what god they are talking about, but its not the one we Catholics worship. Our God doesn't need government permission to do stuff. He is big enough to go where He pleases and stay as long as He likes, in the souls of those who personally worship Him. Anyone who really believes that the United States is in any way dedicated to God needs to watch MTV for a few minutes to get his mind right.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Justice Moore is still smarting from the fact that he "had to go to school with nigras," and he's damned if he's going to let some "by god uppity damnyankee nigra Washington judge" tell him what he's going to "by god do in his by god own" courthouse.
The part that we Catholics note is missing from the whole discussion is that it really doesn't matter what Justice Moore or his supporters think. They don't get a vote. Literally! The Constitution is not interpreted by the voters, no matter how many; it's interpreted by federal judges. In this case Judge Myron Thompson. Judge Thompson made the decision and issued the order. It's up to the State of Alabama to carry it out. The attorney general understands that; the other justices understand it, but it doesn't seem to have percolated into Justice Moore's pointy little WASP brain yet. The law is what the judge says it is, and you have to obey the law. If you don't like what the law says, there are established ways to change it, but until it's changed to your liking you have to obey it as it stands.
John Derbyshire, a fellow Catholic writing "on Christians in America" on National Review Online misses this point:
"Nobody has suggested that Roy Moore is lobbying Congress to pass a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor does it seem that he demands those state officers under his control to recite the Nicene Creed as a condition of getting or keeping their jobs. Case closed. That slab of granite in the lobby? What about it? What harm is it doing?"It probably ain't doing any harm, John! That ain't the point! The point is that the appeal process is exhausted. Judge Thompson says it's got to go, so it's got to go. You have to obey the law. "Case closed."
My more fundamentalist Christian friends tell me that they believe that they get their morality undiluted, straight from God via their Bible, whichever version they happen to use. Nobody, but nobody, has the right to tell them what to do or believe to be saved. Their allegiance is to a higher law, and if that conflicts with what Judge Thompson says, too bad.
Well, OK, but, as I mentioned earlier, I don't see the conflict. Of course, I will admit that, as a Catholic, I have been conditioned to believe very strongly that I am not the final authority, that there are all kinds of people who have the right to tell me what to do and believe, and that I must obey them if I am to save my immortal soul. The one exception is if I am absolutely and irrevocably convinced that they are wrong, but, even here, my Catholic responsibility is to form a right conscience, so that my conviction is not just a hypocritical pretense for not doing what I don't want to.
The Church's teaching concerning civil authorities begins in the Catechism of the Catholic Church around paragraph 2234, which states:
"God's fourth commandment [the fundamentalist's fifth] also enjoins us to honor all who for our good have received authority in society from God. It clarifies the duties of those who exercise authority as well as those who benefit from it."The catechism goes on to say that those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts. 1 Peter 2:13-17 says:
"Be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the approval of those who do good. For it is the will of God that by doing good you may silence the ignorance of foolish people. Be free, yet without using freedom as a pretext for evil, but as slaves of God. Give honor to all, love the community, fear God, honor the king.""...Silence the ignorance of foolish people." Hmmm! So the Catholic Church teaches that we should not only obey Judge Thompson, we should honor him as a representative of God! An uppity, damnyankee nigra judge for god's sake? No wonder the Moore supporters despise us!
In summary, the Catholic position is that the First Amendment is a good idea and that we ought to obey it as interpreted by the federal judges legally constituted to do so. I can't imagine how anyone could reconcile this position with the claim that the monument should not be removed. If the Church is right, Justice Moore is wrong, however sincere, and vice versa.
Of course, there are obviously thousands of devout Christians who believe that Justice Moore is right, and that therefore the Catholic Church is wrong. In the United States, they are free to believe that. Thank God!
It occurs to me that there is another test of who is right and who is wrong. This is what Alvin Gwathney, an inspiring fundamentalist Christian friend of mine, refers to as the "fruit inspector test." It is based on Matthew 7:16, "By their fruits you will know them." Applied to Justice Moore, it notes that he has disrupted life in Montgomery, severely polarized the people of Alabama, divided the Alabama supreme court, cast serious doubt on Alabama courts to rule objectively, removed his participation from future court decisions, subjected the state and its court activities to close and uncomfortable federal scrutiny, including a personal visit by Judge Thompson, and impugned the dignity and good sense of the citizens of the great state of Alabama. Not exactly Sunkist fruits!
On the other hand, the monument is gone.
"Thy will be done!"
I'm going to go out a limb here, but I note that the US Supreme Court, unlike the one in Alabama, consists of nine wise old ladies and gentlemen who know a thing or two about the US Constitution, and don't give a damn about being reelected by redneck rabble next term. I think they are therefore likely to maintain at least nominal objectivity about the whole issue. I think it is likely that they will rule that:
God bless the United States and this honorable Court!
Cases closed.
P.P.P.S.: December 12, 2017 - In spite of having been removed from his position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in November 2003 for opposing Judge Thompson's ruling, Judge Moore was again elected Chief Justice in 2013, but was suspended in May 2016, for opposing a federal ruling that Alabama's's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. After an unsuccessful appeal, he resigned in April 2017, and ran for the United States Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions when he became Attorney General of the United States. He lost. Twice!
P.P.P.P.S.: Notwithstanding the strong endorsement of President Trump, Redneck Roy lost to Democratic candidate Doug Jones by 21,924 votes. True to form, after waiting until the day before the results were certified, his lawyers filed a legal complaint alledging voter fraud based on previously debunked rumors and "calculations" that supposedly indicated that he "should have won," basically because Alabama is a Republican state and Redneck Roy is a Republican.
No matter how hard you try, you just can't fix "stupid."