I consider myself an advocate for individual liberty, limited government, and a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. So when I received an email from The Federalist web site asking me to sign a petition supporting fundamentalist Christian Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore's effort to promote Christian moral law at the site of adjudication of Alabama's civil law, I realized this was an important and confusing issue that required an Objectivist evaluation.
(Click on "continue reading" to see why I say the Ten Commandments monument must be removed not just from the rotunda, as the federal judge has ordered, but from any state or federal court or legislature.)
Federal Judge Myron Thompson reportedly ruled that "the monument violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine." Judge Moore (and Alan Keyes) claim the feds have no jurisdiction over state law in this matter because the Constitution limits the power of the Congress, not the states, in this matter. Well, we have a different perspective now about the limits of the Constition applying only to the federal, and not to state governments than we did before the Civil War. The Constitution does not prevent the states from "making laws respecting the establishment of religion," but it does not prevent them from legalizing slave ownership either.
In simple terms one may consider this case to be a conflict between a more powerful central (federal) government on the one hand, and a more religious government in the state of Alabama (and ultimately other states) on the other. Carried out to their ultimate ends, this is a choice between two tyrannies. But an advancement of any branch of government further into the altruistic collectivist and supernatural realm of religion is a far greater threat than the idea that the federal government shall have the power to regulate the excesses of the governments of the states. They're not barring the people of Alabama from displaying religious beliefs, only Alabama's state government.) It is right to remove the monument not just from the rotunda, as Judge Thompson has ordered, but from the premises of any state or federal court or legislature.
There is no denying the real motives of Judge Moore. Regardless of the legal arguments he employs, his goal is to enshrine his Christian God as the supreme authority over the laws and lives of American citizens. This is evidenced by quotes such as, "I will never deny the God upon whom our laws and country depend," and "Not only did Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God as well." If Moore is allowed to succeed it will be a step away from the America's true founding principles of reason, liberty, and individual rights, and toward the same kind of theological influence over government that exists today in Iran.
Posted by JohnGalt at August 22, 2003 09:50 AMNRO has a good article today as well. Quin Hilyer, a columnist for the Mobile Register, says "This Commandments case is wrong Pryority for conservatives." Amen. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hillyer082503.asp
Posted by: jk at August 25, 2003 10:41 AMDespite Pryor's choice to hold the principles of American secular law above his popular personal views in this case, it is still unsettling that he has been quoted saying, "I continue to believe that the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage..."
"If you don't like the law, work to change it," the saying goes. Where exactly does one go to argue for a redress of grievances with "God?"
Posted by: johngalt at August 27, 2003 09:30 AMA comment posted by "John Galt" (presumably not the one and same in "Atlas Shrugged"), claims, "I consider myself an advocate for individual liberty, limited government, and a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution." He continues, "I received an email from PatriotPetitions.US asking me to sign a petition supporting fundamentalist Christian Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore's effort to promote Christian moral law at the site of adjudication of Alabama's civil law, I realized this was an important and confusing issue that required an Objectivist evaluation."
"Petition to support Moore's effort to promote Christian moral law?" I am not sure where "John" saw this petition, but the open letter in support of Roy Moore at PatriotPetitions.US has nothing to do with promoting Christian moral law and everything to do with "advocate for individual liberty, limited government, and a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution."
Those who are content to reduce this case to a colloquy on the merits of the Ten Commandments either do not grasp the serious constitutional issue being contested, or harbor a disingenuous motive to avoid such discussion of that contest. The latter group, well represented in the pop media, have framed this case as an insurrection led by a religious zealot and his toothless street preachers, depreciating its real significance in order to avoid substantive and instructive discussion about our Constitution.
The substance of this case, and the open letter, solely concern the rule of law as plainly written by our Founders in the U.S. Constitution, the protection of which is entrusted to the federal judiciary, whom authorized by oath to uphold it and its Bill of Rights as adopted by the several states (including Alabama). The substance of this case is whether our Constitution should be altered by amendment (as per original intent), or adulterated by adjudication, which our Founders (as explicated in the Federalist Papers) and the states clearly rejected.
To read and sign the open letter, link to -- http://patriotpetitions.us/openletter
Rob,
Thanks for the comment. I feel very strongly about judicial overreach and the "plethora of penumbras" courts have found in recent years.
Because the topic is unsettling to many, I would prefer to wait for a better example. Many who could be shown to believe in a more strict reading of the Constitution want a "separation of Church and State" even if you and I agree that it is not in there.
There are better cases to fight for than "Roy's Rock."
Yes Rob, thanks for the comment. You didn't mention whether you speak for PatriotPetitions.US, but I suspect you may since your comment included two paragraphs almost verbatim from today's installment of the Federalist.com email digest (03-35 Digest).
I appreciate your insistence that the case and the petition's support for it "solely concern the rule of law as plainly written by our Founders in the U.S. Constitution..." Unfortunately, that aspect of the case can't be separated from the aspect that appears to matter most to Judge Moore. Any legal precedent set here will apply to both aspects. (As a defender of limited government and objective reason I detest Judge Moore for intentionally manufacturing a situation where either precedent will be a setback.)
As I said in the fourth paragraph of my original post, the conflicting positions in this case represent a choice between two tyrannies. I have not shrunk from the issue of judicial activism in this case, I have simply judged it a less immediate threat than a tangible linkage of civil law and religious belief in a state supreme court. However, I respectfully note that the impact of the religious aspect of this case is largely ignored in both your comment and in the open letter petition. Suspicion of disingenuous motives here is warranted as a result.
Posted by: johngalt at August 29, 2003 10:40 PMThe U.S. Supreme Court said in 1892, "The morality of the country is deeply grafted upon Christianity, and not upon doctrins or worship of other religions." If this is true, then you are mistaken.
Rev. Jeremy Morford
Posted by: Jeremy Morford at November 10, 2003 10:56 AM