COURTHOUSE NO PLACE FOR 10 COMMANDMENTS (8-2003)

The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, ran on 
a platform to restore the moral foundation of law. So he erected 
in the state judicial building a 5000-pound monument with the Ten 
Commandments engraved upon it. 

But, as the chief justice could have expected, the placement of 
his monument on public property and in public view was challenged 
in court. As he might also have predicted, being a court justice 
himself, he lost his case, and then lost on appeal.

Last week, Moore asked a federal appeals panel, twice, to stay the 
order that the monument be removed by midnight last Wednesday. The 
appeals panel rejected Moore’s request – twice. So in desperation, 
Moore filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the 
removal order. It, too, was rejected the same day.

As expected, there were several people who have nothing better to 
do, about 30 of them, who gathered in front of the judicial 
building in support of Moore and his monument. They even held a 
candlelight vigil the night before. Among them was Indiana’s own 
Rev. Greg Dixon of the Baptist Temple in Indianapolis, the one the 
IRS seized due to failure of Dixon to contribute payroll taxes of 
his employees.

Campaigning on a platform to promote a moral foundation is 
laudable enough. But erecting an expensive monument on public 
property that is nothing less than a religious document is going 
too far. The trial court, the appellate court and the appeals 
panel were all correct in their determination that such a monument 
blatantly violates the separation of church and state as 
prescribed by the Constitution.

It was not disclosed in the news reports which 10 commandments he 
had inscribed on the monument. Because there are different 
versions depending on which religion one belongs to and which 
Bible is used. So it’s not clear which religion the judge 
established as official in his state.

Even though Protestants, Catholics, and Jews all believe in the 
same God and each one has the Ten Commandments listed in their 
respective bibles, none of the lists agree with one another. In 
fact, in the King James Bible, the first list, found in Exodus 20, 
does not even agree with the second list (Ex. 34) that was written 
by God, supposedly using "the words that were on the first."

So although I’m not certain which set of 10 commandments the judge 
inscribed on his monument, whichever one he chose to use, it is 
undeniably doctrinal in nature, not judicial.

Certainly there are individual commandments that are the same as 
some of our laws: “Thou shalt not steal,” and “Thou shalt not 
kill.” And there are others that, although violating them is not 
criminal, most people frown upon such violations: “Thou shalt not 
commit adultery,” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.” 

But there are also those that are strictly religious in nature, 
not being found within any state or federal statutes that I know 
of: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” and “Remember the 
Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.” And what about, “Thou shalt not 
make unto thee any graven image”? 

There’s certainly no law against making graven images. So a 
monument displaying the Ten Commandments (any version of them) has 
no place on public display in a state judicial building.

The Ten Commandments is a guide to be followed by those who 
subscribe to whatever religion prescribes it as doctrine. And if 
the chief justice wants to hang a plaque of them in his own 
office, that’s fine, too. The courts have even said so.

But to erect a monument with one version or other of the Ten 
Commandments in a public building at taxpayers’ expense is not in 
keeping with the First Amendment, regardless of what the First 
Commandment might say. It is tantamount to establishing a religion 
by the state, a very specific religion at that.