Common sense wins in Alabama Ten Commandments case
Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is not your typical religious right activist. For one thing, there’s that impressive title — most far-right theocrats don’t sit atop state supreme courts.
More importantly, however, Moore has intentionally set the stage for a high-profile legal fight over whether (and how) the government can endorse religion. If you’re familiar with Moore’s exploits, you know that he takes a Taliban-like approach to church-state relations, making little effort to hide his ambition to use his high judicial office to promote his fundamentalist Christian views.
On the other side of this debate is everyone who disagrees with Moore and prefers that government remain neutral on religion, allowing each of us to make up our own minds about matter of faith without aid or interference from public officials.
As part of Moore’s religious crusade, he brought a 5,280-pound Ten Commandments monument into the rotunda of the state judicial building in August 2001. At the time, Moore wanted to make it clear to anyone listening that his effort was part of his religious agenda.
“May this day mark the beginning of the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and a return to the knowledge of God in our land,” Moore said. He added that the purpose of the washing machine-shaped granite statue is to remind people “that in order to establish justice we must invoke the favor and guidance of Almighty God.” If the language sounds familiar, similar remarks were uttered by imams upon the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in the 1990s.
Some stubborn civil libertarians, who keep making pesky arguments about the rule of law and the Constitution, saw Moore’s stunt as unconstitutional and took him to court, arguing that Moore’s crusade is inconsistent with the First Amendment. What a concept.
Yesterday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and ruled unanimously that Moore’s monument is unconstitutional and must be removed. (A .pdf version of the decision is available online.)
As the appeals court explained, Moore’s approach would mean “every government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah, or a statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with authority over the premises.”
To be sure, this is a classic no-brainer case. This doesn’t have anything to do with whether one approves or disapproves of the Decalogue, it’s about whether government officials will take it upon themselves to promote their faith to the public through their official office. Moore’s stunt may be common in countries like Iran, but at least for the time being, Alabama is still part of the United States.
Naturally, I extend a hearty congratulations to my friends who argued this case for their victory. Moore’s legal team has promised to appeal to Supreme Court, but I sincerely doubt the high court will want to hear such an obviously one-sided controversy.
There’s just one wrinkle that I’m worried about, though. Moore, who I can’t emphasize enough is a total lunatic, doesn’t believe that federal courts have jurisdiction over how he promotes religion at the State Supreme Court. Under his legal “philosophy,” Moore doesn’t even believe the Bill of Rights applies to the states at all.
In his court filings relating to his Commandments case, Moore insisted that he has “discretionary power” as to whether he to comply with federal court orders.
What this means, in practical terms, is that Moore may be considering ignoring the federal court ruling, effectively daring the feds to come and take his religious monument away.
The U.S. hasn’t had to deal with such a crisis in decades. In the 1950s, racist Southern governors such as George Wallace of Alabama and Ross Barnett of Mississippi resisted court orders on integrating the states’ public schools. In some instances, the federal government had to send the National Guard in to enforce the law.
I fear that Moore and his theocratic Alabama allies may be tempted to pull a similar stunt. Indeed, Moore’s lawyer, Herb Titus, was asked by reporters yesterday if Moore would comply with federal court orders regarding his Commandments display. Titus said, “We’re not making predictions or forecasts.” This is truly outrageous. In a perfect world, Titus would lose his law license and Moore would be impeached.
Judges on the 11th Circuit appear to be well aware of Moore’s twisted legal reasoning and recognize that the religious zealot may want to defy their order. The judges made it clear: don’t even think about it.
Judge Ed Carnes said in no uncertain terms that Moore is not “above the law.” The decision added, “If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail.”
I sure hope so.
Just as an aside, wouldn’t it be interesting to see how Bush and Ashcroft — both of whom have endorsed government-sponsored religious displays in the past — respond if Moore does try to defy the court order? Should we assume that Bush and Ashcroft would support sending in the National Guard to take Moore’s monument off the property? Hmm.