Tabling the Law

New at Reason: As we mourn the passing of Judge Roy Moore's career, Cathy Young makes a last assessment of the pious jurist's great spectacle.

Comments

[Mike Jones]

Passing? I think you're sadly confused. This is only positioning Moore to become the next Governor of Alabama.

[grizzly]

If that's what he's shooting for his timing is way off. Alabama just elected a new republican gov in '02. I'm not sure how he can keep the momentum up and his face in front of the camera until '06. By the time the next election comes around he's going to be so "three years ago." Having said that, I could be wrong.

[Shady O'Grady]

Cathy should realize, for right or wrong, the constitution does not apply to people under the age of 18 and therefore the comment about a grade schooler wanting to read bible passages does not apply.

[Gary McGath]

So where's rst to remind us that governmental signs telling people they can't have a different religion are mere "rocks" and thus don't matter?

[matt]

time for the weekly judge moore roast i guess....

[Anonymous]

Can't the lesbian mother who was denied custody of her child because of her "perversion" appeal on the grounds that Moore was prejudiced?

[rst]

the constitution does not apply to people under the age of 18

Whoa. Not true.

governmental signs telling people they can't have a different religion

I'm right here, pointing to the block letters on the back of the dollar bill that you use to buy things. Does your use of the dollar bill imply that you trust in God? Nothing about the rock forced the reader to follow the given instructions. The crime was in not removing Moore when he denied custody to the lesbian woman and used biblical passages to do so, or at any point previous where his actions in his official capacity were influenced by the religious code that the rock represented. Whether the rock is placed in the front of the courthouse, or unobtrusively placed in the back hall, the actual problem was only solved accidentally. Lifeless objects do not violate rights.

[rst]

The message Gary is that rights are violated by actions. Not by objects. There is no violation of rights by putting a monument to a moral code in a courthouse...only the followers of the religion that it represents are beholden to it. When in the course of jurisprudence an individual is held to it, then it becomes a violation of this "separation of church and state" everybody is looking for.

[Mona]

rst writes: "Lifeless objects do not violate rights."

So, if I want to put a huge billboard on my lawn depicting a man masturbating, that's fine by you? No one is forced to look at it.

[Warren]

Or better yet, how about a disembodied head mounted on a pike outside the courthouse with a sign draped over it that reads "heathen".

Its just a (all too) lifeless object. You don't have to fear for you life if you choose not to, right?

[Douglas Fletcher]

..."how about a disembodied head mounted on a pike outside the courthouse with a sign draped over it that reads "heathen"."

Or John the Baptist, wouldn't that be cool?

[Patrick]

Thanks Cathy. Glad to see the similarity between Islamists and our own "Judeo-Christianists" is not lost on everyone.

Listening to Islamic fundamentalists when I was a student in the Middle East in the mid-80's I was consistently reminded of the Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. I used to comfort myself with the knowledge that, unlike Islam (and Judeaism prior to the Reform movement) which lays out a detailed and severely antiquated code of civil law), Christianity had no basis to even aspire to that. "Render unto Caesar what it is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's" and all that.

I see that has not been an obstacle for Moore, Hannity, O'Reilly and company.

[Anonymous]

Christianity is not the religion of Christ, it is a religion *about* Christ. You'd think prohibitions against idolitry might disuade Christians from supporting Moore, but they don't because this isn't about protecting religion it's about promoting it at any opportunity. Just like school prayer. It isn't about talking to God, it's about forcing children to pray to a particular God in unison.

Cause you know how children love to pray in unison, the playgrounds are full of it.

If you can go into the church of your choice and worship the way you want without fear, you have freedom of religion. If you can't walk into a secular government building without being assaulted by religious imagery, you don't.

[rst]

latching onto the shrine issue is what ended up getting his theocratic carcass off the bench

Only because he defied the order to get rid of it. The order which said: move the rock.

Meanwhile, judges like Moore are still free to deny lesbians custody of children because God apparently doesn't like homosexuals. Congrats, moving that rock was a real triumph. *cough*.

Like I said, it's a rock. You can move it, protest against it, melt it down and turn it into a sidewalk...you still haven't actually separated the church from the state. Moving the rock is a sleight of hand trick to make you think you've moved towards secularization, relying on your adherence to cheap symbols to cement the illusion.

[beanie]

I rather agree with RST. A rock, in this context, is hardly an example of being assaulted by religious imagery. The issue is not the courthouse's decor, but rather the way in which Moore's judgements were rendered.

[R. C. Dean]

If you can go into the church of your choice and worship the way you want without fear, you have freedom of religion. If you can't walk into a secular government building without being assaulted by religious imagery, you don't.

Leaving aside the impossibility of imagery assaulting anyone, I have to ask:

Which is it? Why can't both conditions be true at once (as they are in America?) Since I manufestly can worship the way I want, and since some government buildings have some reference to something or other judeo-christian, I seem to be in the position of simultaneously having and not having religious freedom.

So which is it?

[joe]

"The issue is not the courthouse's decor, but rather the way in which Moore's judgements were rendered."

I'd say they're both issues, with the decision to sneak in the shrine being one of a whole host of terrible decisions by Moore. But I don't see how objecting to the monument is in any way counterproductive to the goal of getting rid of nutcases like Moore. In fact, latching onto the shrine issue is what ended up getting his theocratic carcass off the bench.

[joe]

Symbols are important. Ask Mr. (not Judge - hooray!) Moore. Or Albert Speer.

Getting the shrine off of public property hasn't resolved all this country's church-state issues. It also hasn't cured the common cold or given me shaplier hips and thighs. So?

[Smith Whitney]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 212.253.2.205
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/21/2004 05:51:16
No cause is so right that one cannot find a fool following it.