Grim's Hall

More on a Pious Fraud:

Having argued, with Jefferson, that the Ten Commandments are not properly described as the foundation of our Republic (see the weekend postings), I must now also note John Derbyshire's take on the subject:

One hundred and forty years ago, one of the giants of British politics was the social reformer and big-L Liberal William Ewart Gladstone. The mathematician Augustus De Morgan caused some mild hilarity in London by pointing out that the great man's name was an anagram of "WILT TEAR DOWN ALL IMAGES?" Is that � tearing down all images � actually the program of modern American liberalism? Does it not occur to you liberals, not even for a passing instant, that by purging all sacred images, references, and words from our public life, you are leaving us with nothing but a cold temple presided over by the Goddess of Reason � that counterfeit deity who, as history has proved time and time and time again, inspires no affection, retains no loyalties, soothes no grief, justifies no sacrifice, gives no comfort, extends no charity, displays no pity, and offers no hope, except to the tiny cliques of fanatical ideologues who tend her cold blue flame.

Well said. Much of the rest of the piece is also thought provoking. This page is fortunate enough to have Christian readers, as well as Pagan, Heathen, Jewish, and Muslim readers (if we have others--well, write me and I'll include you next time). I would gladly sit and talk to any of them on points of faith, and I have no problem at all with them tempering reason with their faith when it comes to the execution of their duties as a citizen--including jury duty, military service (conscientious objectors, for example), and so forth. Should they be elected to public office, I would hope that they would have been open and honest about their faith during the campaign, as no one can really set aside their religion when they stand to serve.

"Roy's Rock" is just what Jefferson called it--a pious fraud--but Justice Roy Moore himself is far from a madman, and here is his ipse dixit to prove it. His argument is principled, reasoned and reasonable, and grounded in an understanding of the Founders and the Founding, as well as the traditions and constitution of his state:

We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment. . . .

My decision to disregard the unlawful order of the federal judge was not civil disobedience, but the lawful response of the highest judicial officer of the state to his oath of office. Had the judge declared the 13th Amendment prohibition on involuntary slavery to be illegal, or ordered the churches of my state burned to the ground, there would be little question in the minds of the people of Alabama and the U.S. that such actions should be ignored as unconstitutional and beyond the legitimate scope of a judge's authority. Judge Thompson's decision to unilaterally void the duties of elected officials under the state constitution and to prohibit judges from acknowledging God is equally unlawful.

For half a century the fanciful tailors of revisionist jurisprudence have been working to strip the public sector naked of every vestige of God and morality. They have done so based on fake readings and inconsistent applications of the First Amendment. They have said it is all right for the U.S. Supreme Court to publicly place the Ten Commandments on its walls, for Congress to open in prayer and for state capitols to have chaplains--as long as the words and ideas communicated by such do not really mean what they purport to communicate. They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like "separation of church and state," to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed. Nevertheless, Judge Thompson's order states that the acknowledgment of God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible and that to acknowledge God is to violate the Constitution.

Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God, as well. I say enough is enough. We must "dare defend our rights" as Alabama's state motto declares. No judge or man can dictate what we believe or in whom we believe. The Ninth and 10th Amendments are not a part of the Constitution simply to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. Those are the rules of law.

It is not for no reason Jefferson wrote the letter I cited below: he wrote it because Justice Moore had direct intellectual ancestors living in Jefferson's own day, making the same argument with the same force. It is not proper now to suggest that Justice Moore is somehow outside of the rightful American tradition. He is a modern incarnation of a part of the American tradition that has been with us since the Founding.

He is still wrong. He is wrong for the reasons Jefferson laid bare, not the ones brought against him today. His opinion has a respectable pedigree, as old and as honest as any in the Republic. I respect any man who stands on old and honest principles, though I may disagree with him. I feel Justice Moore deserves the respect due a valiant and honorable foe, even as we ready lances to war against him.