Roy Moore's Inverse Beatitudes

Last week, my parents forwarded to me a "poem" by Judge Roy Moore. He is the Alabama judge who illegally posted a statue to the 10 Commandments at his courthouse. Then he whined when he was forced to remove the statue, and he eventually resigned over the issue.

I say, good for ex-judge Moore for engaging in civil disobedience. It's our right as Americans to disengage ourselves from public acts of conformity to a society with which we find ourselves morally disaffected. Having engaged in civil disobedience, however, does not negate an individual's obligation to suffer the consequences of his or her actions.

On the other hand... The poem itself is a vile, hate-filled diatribe by a man who evidently thinks being Christian stops with "Biblical" law. The problem with people who support the display of the 10 Commandments in buildings owned by the public is that they are implying a governmental endorsement of religion. Specifically, they prefer the fundamentalist Christianity embraced by a certain portion of the population in the more southerly latitudes of this country to the religious tenets of everyone else.

The 10-Commandmenteers rely upon two arguments to justify their positions. One is that the US government was founded upon Christianity. The 10 Commandments, they argue, are the "basis for our laws." Yet, the Constitution nowhere mentions God or the Christian religion. Ample evidence can be discovered in the writings of Adams, Jefferson and others that they deliberately framed the constitution to avoid a government-religion bond. The laws of the United States are based on two sources: Anglo-Saxon Common Law (dating back to the 4th-7th centuries, when the English were pagans) and Roman law (already well established before Constantine imposed official Christianity upon the Empire). To post the 10 Commandments in government buildings implies a connection between Christianity and law that does not, and has never, existed.

"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" states Article 11 of a late-1700s treaty between the US and the Barbary kingoms that was signed unanimously by Congress and the president of the time (a Founding Father). Jefferson wrote in reference to the Virginia Act of Religious Freedom that its protection covered "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." The writers of the Act specifically removed from it any reference to Jesus Christ. Quite a tolerant position to take, considering that people were still being tortured and killed in Europe for heresy in the 18th century.

Failing the test of the descent of law, the fundamentalists like Moore fall back upon the idea that having religious monuments is constitutional as a matter of religious freedom. Since Congress is prohibited from making ANY law establishing religion, all religions are welcome in the public space. But, imagine if this idea were carried out! What would Moore, Fallwell, Robertson, et al. say about a Moslem judge's posting of the Koran? Heaven forbid a Wiccan might plant a tree in her courtroom, or a Buddhist post the "Tenfold Path" before his bench! These people are not looking for freedom of religion. If this were truly the issue, then one would expect to see Moslems and Buddhists arguing for display of their sacred symbols in government buildings.

What kind of world does ex-judge Moore seek to bring about? What form of government? Do we need an American Taliban to tell us right from wrong? The issue most sacred to him, judging by its prominence in the "poem," is capital punishment. But, what about sincere Christians who believe capital punishment to be immoral? His Commandments monument clearly seeks to establish a religious sect (or sects) above others. In placing the monument in a courthouse,
he is giving tacit official endorsement to the notion that capital punishment is ethical, in contradiction to Christians and non-believers who may believe otherwise, and be able to quote chapter and verse in favor of their beliefs. Likewise with abortion and homosexuality. Many Christians believe abortion and homosexual acts are a sin. But clearly at this time abortion is the law of the land, and homosexuality is tolerated to one degree or another by people of all faiths. If an Anglican gay bishop had to appear in Moore's court, how impartially could he expect the judge to treat him, given that imposing granite monument in the courthouse? Why is ex-judge Moore's version of Christianity better than everyone else's?

"God's law is higher than man's law," Moore's poem goes to great pains to prove. This is the argument of all fundamelists and extremists from Eric Rudolph to Timothy McVeigh and Mohammed Atta. The United States is a country composed of people of a multitude of faiths,
or none at all. Its constitution and laws do not endorse any religion, or none, but rather leave the people free to choose their own paths to enlightenment. That always has been the way in this country, and it should continue to be so.