Centerfield

"You will hear from me again when it comes to the right to acknowledge God."

That's what he said to a cheering crowd yesterday after being removed from the bench.

He's been saying it again and again -- at rallies, in interviews, and again in front of the judicial ethics panel earlier this week. They're trying to stop him from acknowledging God.

Of course, Judge Moore does acknowledge God. He does it at those same rallies, interviews, and hearings. He does it on the steps of the courthouse, and in his own judicial chambers. Nobody stepped in to stop him, or even suggested that he stop.

This case isn't about protecting the rights of an individual -- who happens to be a state official -- to proclaim his faith at the time and place of his choosing.

It's about a monument in a courthouse -- which could reasonably be seen by anyone as the court itself endorsing a specific religious faith.

I wish Judge Moore would be more honest about what's going on and stop misleading his supporters about the central issue involved.

i'm not religious, but i must concede that a more expansive reading of the first amendment -- i.e., one in which establishment really means a state sponsored or sanctioned religion rather than, e.g., barring prayer at hi-school graduation and "may god save this honorable court" intoned at the beginning of proceedings (or in god we trust on the bill or the congressional chaplin or whatever) -- is defensible. in fact, i'd go so far as to say many of the lefties i know are religious bigots, frightened by those with faith (with the added hypocrisy of claiming to respect religion when practiced by, e.g., muslims outside the U.S. but terrified by bush's apparent faith). and i think this provokes a virulent counter-response by people who think their faith is being disrespected. don't get me wrong -- there will always be nuts who want prayer every day in every school etc. but leaving the ten commandments up in a courthouse probably seems pretty reasonable to a huge percentage of our population, pretty clearly does not consitute the establishment of a religion as likely understood by the founders (again, i'm not an originalist, but it's defensible), and if we don't respect that, even in disagreement, we risk making the divide grow.

Brian, you mention that many Christians are showing a "lack of concern for separation of church and state." My question is "what do you mean by separation?" The state already gets to decide which churches/religious organizations get to file for tax-exempt status (if that's not establishment of religion, I don't know what is). The public display of religion on federal property seems to me to be a much lesser establishment of religion.

The people so ready to stand up and yell against "God" on money seem to care not a bit that the church and state ceased to be separated when the state was given authority to say who counts as an "official" church. Could it be that they missed the boat completely?

I find it hard to draw a distinction between a "state sponsored" religion and erecting a monument with specific religious doctrine in the rotunda of a courthouse.

That does seem to me to be state sponsorship of a specific faith.

And I think that's the best place to draw the line. Individual public officials can express their religious views anywhere they want to. They can't use the institutions of the state to promote that faith, however.

There's a similar analogy with regards to prayer in schools. Most people think that we've somehow banished or eliminated prayer from the public schools. But students have the right, under current court rulings, to pray in school.

Here's a passage from a statement of current law regarding religion in schools:

"Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. In the classroom students have the right to pray quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate."

I think those on the opposite side of this debate would be surprised to find how broadly rights of religious expression are protected in the law. The above statement was adopted as policy under the Clinton administration and distributed to every school district in America.

Nobody's telling kids they can't pray in school. Nor is anyone preventing Judge Moore from acknowledging God.

I think both DJ and Rob make interesting points...

DJ, I'd probably call it the narrower reading of the Constitution which interprets that "establishing"means only giving one religion or several an official stamp, or prohibiting others. But I absolutely agree both that it's a defensible argument and that most people are untroubled by things like "God' on money and so forth.

My take on it is that when it comes to religion, it's much better for everyone if the government doesn't presume to speak for all of us. Why say In God WE Trust,' when in fact In God Only 77% of us trust?

So to answer Rob, that's really the best I can do when it comes to defining "separation," that the Government should not presume to speak for all of us on religious matters. At the same time, I find the mention of God on money and in the pledge trivial(but then I believe, in my own way.)

I agree that the government is meddling with religion when it says one group IS a religion for tax purposes and yet another group is not. That DOES sound like it could be establishment to me. Years back when I asked myself "what's the difference between a religion and a cult?" I decided that it was primarily a matter of time and number of believers, not a matter of the content of the beliefs.

But at the same time, I understand WHY the government acts as it does regarding religions. If any Tom, Dick, or Harriette with a robe and a vacant glow could simply declare that they were starting a religion, it would create a tax nightmare. People starting religions simply for the purposes of tax sheltering would be legion. The alternative would be to take away tax-exempt status for religions other than for the charitable component of the religious work, which would be an accounting nightmare for churches, and which would NEVER happen in a 77% judeo-christian nation anyway.

But I don't find it much of a problem that the government establishes some religions and not others for tax purposes. The beliefs themselves are not being constrained, and given the alternatives, it seems to me to be eminently defensible that the government would make a would-be religion earn it's tax-exempt status by showing some staying power over time and some good works.

And it's not exactly llogical even though it's sort of paradoxical. You start your own religion and go to the government for tax-exempt status, and when they turn you down, you appeal on constitutional grounds. And the government says they are not violating the establishment clasue because what you're doing isn't a religion...

Anyone know if any other countries tax religions?

The idea that the authority to decide the tax-status of any "religion" constitutes the the authority to establish a religion seems wildly innacurate to me. You can still worship however and with whomever you choose, but your organization simply has to pay taxes if it doesn't get the fedgov approval.

As for the Judge Moore circus, I simply asked myself this: If I were in Iran or Saudi Arabia, would I expect to see verses from the Koran etched in stone monuments at buildings where public justice is dispensed? Yes, I would. That makes me very uncomfortable with the Ten Commandments at my local courthouse, Christian though I am.

Two counties where I live have decided to erect similar monuments at their courthouses in response to this nonsense. The RR is gonna get all the mileage they can out of this one..."oh we're sooo persecuted by the heathen ACLU!!" Give me a break people.

Unlike the "In God we trust" and so on, the Ten Commandments does specifically endorse a religion. Besides being taken from a Judeo-Christian text, the first and foremost commandment is "I am the lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me." That is clearly coming down on one religion. The second says "no graven images," which are themselves clearly ingrained in our culture. The next two commandments are also purely religious in nature: "Thou shalt not take my name in vain," and "Keep the Sabbath." For the government to enforce these would violate the First Amendment, relating to speech, and enforcing the Sabbath would not be well-received either. Only after these primary Commandments do we come to the precepts for living a good life, either secular or religious (like no killing, lying, adultery, coveting, etc, and of course honoring your parents). For all of the apologists to say that the 10 Commandments are the basis for our secular laws is deceiptful as they choose to ignore for their argument the most fundamental commandments, which essentially say "this is The God, forget whatever religion (or lack of one) you were thinking of following." Thus, putting this monument up was very much worse than what you see on a dollar bill or the like.

I think Carl B's comments hilight the real issue -- the difference between generic statements that really amount to 'There is someone/something greater than what we can know' and statements that identify a specific deity and convey that deity's will.

Here was my take when this all started:
here

I think there's one really important point to be made about Judge Moore and his monument. Namely, it's his monument. The Ten Commandments monument had not been sitting in that rotunda from time immemorial, or even from the 1960's. It was installed at Moore's command, in the dead of night, without the knowledge or approval of any of the other justices or the state, in August of 2001. Moore's removal from the court for failing to obey the court orders regarding the monument is entirely appropriate. HE PUT IT THERE.

When asked if it would be appropriate to put a Koranic monument in the rotunda, Moore replied that the Koran didn't build this nation, GOD did, and so his monument was appropriate where a Koranic monument would not be.

In other words, Moore expressly had that monument placed where it was, without any prior approval by the state or the court, explicitly to promote a particular religion under the aegis of the state and the court. And that is explicitly what is prohibited by the Constitution. Then he defied the court's orders to remove it, and was himself removed, as he should have been. When you swear to uphold the law, and then go out of your way to break it, and defy it, you get what you deserve (or at least a little piece of it).