OPINION & EDITORIAL
Remedial Civics 101
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Rob Hunter:
- Patient Abandonment Bill targets women's rights (April 21, 2005)
- Read ID Act goes too far infringing upon civil liberties (April 28, 2005)
- Gay rights needed to protect equality (May 5, 2005)
- Evolution not about free speech (March 17, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Ten Commandments removal sparks counterpoint (September 10, 2003)
- Judicial activism continues to damage constitutional rights (September 4, 2003)
- Hon. Rehnquist deserves praise (September 8, 2005)
- Keep faith out of public (March 2, 2005)
- "Commanding" governance (October 19, 2004)
by Rob Hunter
Monday, September 8, 2003
As a nation, we seem to have forgotten most of what we slept through in high school civics.
Recently, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ordered that a monument to the Ten Commandments in the Alabama state judicial building be removed. Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, the man behind the monument, was suspended from his post and charged with six ethics violations. It seemed like a clear-cut case: Moore violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment by erecting a religious monument in a government building; consequently, a federal judge found him to be breaching the wall between church and state and had the offending sculpture removed. Yet, according to a recent Gallup poll, three-fourths of Americans surveyed disapproved of Thompson’s decision.
In fact, many Alabamans agree with Moore’s attorney that, “Federal judges are so wrapped up in precedent that they have forgotten what the plain words of the Constitution are … [T]he First Amendment does not prohibit putting up a monument in a building … [T]his is contrary to the Constitution …”
The arguments for keeping the monument in place go something like this: The monument is “secular” because it is non-denominational; the Ten Commandments form the moral basis for American law; and, most frequently, references to God abound in our public literature and buildings, so what’s wrong with one more monument?
None of these arguments stand up to scrutiny. The first is simply absurd. “God” as referring to the Judeo-Christian deity is inherently a non-secular utterance. The second is merely an innocuous claim that carries no mandate for action. The third ignores the vast gulf between the nondenominational deity mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance (a voluntary and unofficial oath) or on a dollar bill and the God of Abraham and Moses as mentioned on a 2.6-ton monument to a specific faith that dominated the Alabama state judicial building’s rotunda.
More importantly, all of these arguments sidestep the logic of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which allows “no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The doctrine of the separation of church and state — the mere “precedent” that Moore’s attorney scoffs at — is a development of more than 200 years of federal jurisprudence, crafted by judges because the First Amendment guarantees the “free exercise” of religion.
The establishment clause is the first defense of all Americans’ freedom of worship. If the government were allowed to recognize a particular faith in an official capacity, it would be able to effectively silence or diminish the freedoms of other faiths through such an act of official preference. Religious freedom lives and dies with the separation of church and state.
Unlike the words “In God We Trust” on a dollar bill, “Moore’s Holy Rock” represented a violation of the separation of church and state because it singled out particular tenets of a particular faith, was placed in a government building (and thus gained the patina of governmental legitimacy) and was an overt (and extremely massive) proclamation of religious belief. How could someone who did not subscribe to those articles of faith believe that his or her standing as a subject of the law was not affected?
Whether Moore intended it or not, the monument lifted the blindfold from the face of the law, at least as far as the religious liberties of Alabamans were concerned.
Moore’s supporters recently argued in court that the removal of the monument was a denial of religious freedom, because the act somehow signaled the government’s hostility to theistic religions. Judge Thompson rejected such claims, correctly arguing that the empty rotunda signifies government neutrality toward religion, and neither the “establishment of ‘non-theistic’ belief nor … disrespect for Christianity …”
Shrill complaints and accusations bandied about by conservative religious groups in Alabama claiming Thompson’s ruling is an assault on Christian belief could not be further from the truth. In an overwhelmingly Christian nation, they have little to fear in terms of discrimination or persecution. First Amendment protections extend to all patterns of belief, not just Christianity.
The fervor that the proponents of the monument hold in their religious convictions may do them credit as believers, but not as citizens. Roy Moore just failed a pop quiz in the nationwide civics class that is American democracy. Hopefully those of us who aren’t still asleep at our desks have learned enough that we can pass.
Rob Hunter (jameshunter@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in philosophy and political science.
