WHO WOULD have thought that ten little rules could cause such a commotion?
Last week, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was suspended after defying an order by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of Montgomery to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from Alabama's state judicial building. Thompson had ruled that the monument violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of religion. Moore, who had until last Wednesday to remove the monument that he placed there two years ago, continues to stand his ground, contending that he is upholding his oath of office by acknowledging God in the public rotunda of the building.
This somewhat confusing situation has fueled a long-standing and raging debate about the roles of government and religion in our society. But there are two questions that beg answers: What is the big deal, and why hasn't our government made an absolute, final, clear decision regarding the presence of religion in our society?
The events in Alabama have prompted strong responses from both sides. On the one hand, what is the big deal about having a monument of the Ten Commandments in a state judicial building? Aside from the First Commandment, which explicitly acknowledges that there is a God, the rest are simply a generally good set of rules to live by: Don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, don't cheat on your wife. In fact, the Ten Commandments are in accordance with many of our own judicial ideals (except for the cheating on your wife part -- politicians generally seem to ignore that one). It's interesting that so many people wish to remove something that seems to naturally have a place in a judicial building.
On the contrary, what is the big deal about removing the monument? In this country, we supposedly have a separation of church and state. Yet there are hundreds of protesters on the steps of Alabama's state judicial building that seem shocked at the possibility of the monument's removal. Perhaps they think that we're all going to hell in a hand basket the minute the Ten Commandments are out of public view. Perhaps they feel the monument is a historic part of the building -- although it's only been there for two years. Whatever their reasons, they're completely up in arms about its removal.
But the problem lies not with whether the monument should stay. The problem is that decisions -- regarding both the Alabama case and the larger question of the role of religion in this country -- remain ambiguous and unenforced.
For one thing, no one seems to be sure of just who has authority over the monument. Yes, an Alabama court ruled that the monument was in violation of the Constitution, and Moore was suspended after defying a federal judge's orders to remove it on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his appeal for an emergency stay. However, Moore contends that "no judge can dictate in whom we can believe" ("Chief Justice fights court order," www.msnbc.com, Aug. 21) and plans to take his case to the Supreme Court. Moore doesn't seem to realize that with a federal order, a suspension and a rejected appeal, he's probably on the losing side of the authority battle, yet he and his supporters claim that Thompson has no authority to order the monument's removal.
For another thing, despite all of the court orders and suspensions being thrown around, the monument still remains in the public rotunda of the courthouse. Memo to the federal government: Enforce your decisions! Why is the monument still there? A court shouldn't order its removal and then leave it sitting there. Steps were taken to suspend Moore, yet no steps have been taken to actually remove the cause of all of this hoopla. No wonder the protesters haven't left yet -- they came to save the monument, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Another baffling inconsistency with this ruling is that although Judge Thompson ordered the removal of the Ten Commandments from the public rotunda, officials say it can be placed in another part of the building. Right. So there can be no religion in the rotunda of the judicial building, but religion's allowed in, say, the secretary's office. Basically, the government doesn't want the monument on display in a public part of the state judicial building. But if the whole point of Thompson's ruling is that the government cannot promote a religious doctrine, then the monument shouldn't be displayed anywhere, whether in the rotunda or the bathroom.
But the one larger, glaring inconsistency in this mess begs the question of why the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a government building yet "In God We Trust" can be printed on our currency. Doesn't the mere mention of the word God, not to mention the fact that we apparently trust in Him, promote a religious doctrine? Where do you draw the line between the beliefs that our country was founded upon, and the assurance of religious freedom?
The government needs to make a final, absolute decision about the role of religion in our country. The case in Alabama is another example of a dispute that stems the uncertainty of what constitutes a religious doctrine and what does not. Until then, the debate rages on.
(Kristin Brown's column appears Wednesdays in the Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kbrown@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 6 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
