Should minorities be allowed to control the majority’s speech and religion?

By Mary Mostert

Is Judge Roy Moore’s defense of the Ten Commandments, as we are told by opponents of displaying the Ten Commandments, comparable to the 1962 stance of Governor Ross Barnett refusing to allow a black student into the University of Mississippi? Well, not exactly. This time it is the Court, not the governor that is insisting upon an exclusivity doctrine. A judge, they are saying, cannot acknowledge God as the source of our law by putting a monument in the court building displaying the Ten Commandments, which are accepted by most Americans as the ultimate authority, or basis of the Law. The issue here is authority. Who has the authority to decide whether or not the State of Alabama has the authority to acknowledge God as the ultimate authority for the laws of the State? The preamble to the Alabama’s State Constitution declares: “We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama.”

Judge Roy Moore claims the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals “have no power, no authority, no jurisdiction to tell the state of Alabama that we cannot acknowledge God as the source of our law." In effect it was not Roy Moore who was on trial in the 11th Appeals Court. Judge Moore was asked:

Q. “Was your purpose in putting the 10 Commandments monument in the Supreme Court Rotunda was to acknowledge God’s law and God’s sovereignty?

Ans: “Yes The Constitution also states, in Article III, Section 2, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States and Treaties made.” The courts are co-equal to the President and the Congress, not superior to it. The power of the Court is limited to the Constitution and to laws passed. It has no authority to make up laws or interfere with the free exercise of religion on the part of others.

As former Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes asked at a rally for Judge Moore, “Would somebody point out to me the law that this (11th Court of Appeals) judge is basing his decision on? Because if I'm breaking the law, or if Judge Moore's breaking the law, I'd like to know which law it is. I'd like to know who passed it, I'd like to know where it's written!” Where is a law written that representations of the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed on public property?

Eleventh District Court Chief Judge Edmondson stated in the Judge Roy Moore case, “Perhaps in the early days of the Republic these words (the first Amendment establishment clause) were understood to protect only diversity within Christianity but today are recognized as guarding religious liberty and equality to the infidel, the atheist, and the adherents to non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism.”

That is true. However, the free exercise of religion under the Constitution does not require or even allow the State to EXCLUDE one religion, while allowing others, such as that of the infidel, the atheist, and the adherent to non-Christian faiths such as Islam or Judaism to control public areas. And, that is exactly where we are headed. Edmondson wrote, as justification for demanding the removal of the Ten Commandment monument, “The three plaintiffs are attorneys whose professional duties require them to enter the Judicial building regularly and when they do they pass by the monument. None of them shares the Chief Justices religious views and all of them consider the monument offensive.”

What is happening here is that because a tiny minority is “offended” by the Ten Commandments, the right of the majority to exercise their freedom of religion and freedom of speech is being denied. Edmondson stated in his decision: “If we adopted his (Judge Moore’s) position, the Chief Justice would be free to adorn the walls of the Alabama Supreme Courtroom with sectarian religious murals, and have religious quotations painted above the bench. Every government building could be topped with a cross, a menorah or a statue of Buddha depending on the views of the officials with authority over the premises.”

In other words, if Judge Roy Moore got his way, our public buildings might be as cluttered with monuments and carvings as the U.S. Supreme Court Building? Among those represented on that building are Moses and the Ten Commandments (several times); Confucius, China’s great philosopher; Solon, of Athens who replaced Draco’s oppressive laws. Others include Muhammad, holding the Quran; Menes the first lawgiver of Egypt; Hammurabi, Babylon’s lawgiver; King Solomon, Israel’s lawgiver; Lycurgus, the lawgiver of Sparta; Draco; Octavian (Caesar Augustus) of Rome; Napoleon Bonaparte; Chief Justice John Marshall; Britain’s great jurist William Blackstone; Hugo Grotius, who pioneered the understanding of natural rights in law; Louis IX of France; King John of England; Charlemagne, King of France, and Justinian, a Roman Emperor.

What Edmondson has done with this decision is the exact opposite of freedom of speech. Yes, free exercise of religion would lead to not only Moses, but also other depictions of other lawgivers appropriate to a public building — just exactly what we have on the Supreme Court Building. The majority’s recognition of the Source of authority for most of America’s laws, which were, indeed, founded on Christian-Judaic law, not Islamic or Confucian or Buddhist law, does not take away ANYTHING from atheists and other non-believers. When the non-believers ONLY want representations of their humanist and atheist beliefs ARE religious beliefs, they are depriving others of the freedom of expression and religion given by our Creator and guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

© Mary Mostert