| Taking His Name in Vain |
25 August 2003
|
Alabama's Oath-Breaking Judge
Only in America could judges waste court time over a display of the Ten Commandments. In Alabama, though, a major storm has been blowing over those who are all for the display and those who are all for the Constitution. A judge, actually the top man on Alabama's Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roy Moore, has had the Ten Commandments on display on public property, and he has lost an 8-1 vote by that court to remove the display. The US Supreme Court has ignored Justice Moore's request to intervene. What a colossal waste of time.
No one but the most cynical doubts that Justice Moore is a deeply religious man. A belief in a divine being is probably a good thing for an American judge; since there is little earthly accountability, some sort of check is in order (although in the state of Alabama, judges are elected to 6 year terms). However, he also swore to uphold the constitutions of the US and of Alabama when he put on the robe, and he is breaking his oath by disobeying the ruling that went against him.
Much has been written about the First Amendment and how it sparks this foolish debate, while almost nothing of Alabama's constitution (which is far more damning of the judge) has appeared. The state document spells out in far greater detail the balancing act, but in Article I, Section 2 paragraphs 2-3, it states, "(2) Federal and state laws 'neutral' toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise. (3) Governments should not burden religious exercise without compelling justification." Justice Moore and his followers make much of this, saying that their right to proselytize is being threatened.
Conveniently they forget the rest of the document -- Article I, Section 5b, paragraphs 1-2. "Government may burden a person’s freedom of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
Avoiding the establishment of religion that would violate the American constitution seems a compelling interest, and removing a 5,300 pound granite block from the courthouse doesn't seem restrictive. And losing in the Supreme Court of Alabama, the highest state judicial authority (Article V) on an 8-1 vote, would appear to be the end of it.
Instead, Justice Moore will fight on and on. Except, how does he square this passion for the Laws of Moses with the oath he took before the very God he claims to love with all his heart, the oath he is currently breaking by not yielding, by not upholding the court's decision on the constitutions of Alabama and the USA? So nice to know that crime in Alabama is so low that the courts have nothing better to do than consider angels dancing on the heads of pins.
Home