Defender
of the Decalogue
Interview
of Chief Justice Roy Moore by Thomas R. Eddlem
Determined
to preserve the Founders' vision of God-given rights, Chief Justice Roy Moore
has been targeted by Morris Dees and like-minded leftist radicals.
Alabama
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore first attracted national
attention as an Alabama state circuit judge in 1995, when the ACLU
unsuccessfully sued in an attempt to require the judge to remove from his
courtroom a homemade plaque of the Ten Commandments. In 2000, Alabama voters
elected Moore chief justice of the state Supreme Court.
During
the campaign, Moore had pledged to bring the Ten Commandments to
the State Supreme Court to conform to the spirit of the Alabama state
constitution. That constitution begins with a declaration that "to
establish justice ... and secure the blessings of liberty," the government
will be based upon "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God."
Moore
fulfilled his campaign promise by installing a granite monument of the Ten
Commandments in the court rotunda, and was again sued by plaintiffs represented
by agnostic and radical left organizations. On November 18th, U.S. District
Judge Myron Thompson ruled that the marble monument must be removed within 30
days. Judge Moore, who plans to appeal the decision, was interviewed on November
21, 2002.
THE
NEW AMERICAN: What prompted you to put the Ten Commandments monument
in the courthouse in the first place?
Chief
Justice Roy Moore: The Commandments were placed in the court to
acknowledge the moral foundation of our law and the foundation of our
government.
TNA:
Some people might say that they don't understand the connection
between our country's laws and the Ten Commandments, which were written long
before 1776. Where is the connection?
Moore:
The connection is in the foundational documents of our country,
including the Declaration of Independence. It says in the first sentence that
we are founded upon the "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure
these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed." In those three sentences, you can
plainly see that the laws of God give us the right to be a power among the other
powers on the Earth and that it was God that gave us our rights æ not
government. And government's only role is to secure our rights for us. And if it
should fail to do so, then the Declaration says that "it is the right of
the people to alter or abolish it."
The
Ten Commandments are the divinely revealed law. In the laws of
England -- where we get the words "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's
God" -- divine law is a direct part of the law of nature. In a very real
sense, the Ten Commandments represent the "Laws of Nature" and
"Nature's God" upon which our country was founded. Also, in a deeper
sense, the Ten Commandments are the basis of our freedom of conscience, which
flows from the first table of the law. The forefathers, including James
Madison, felt very strongly that the duties that we owe to God were
outside of government's prerogative, that government had no business
interfering with the way we worship God. Therefore, "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof" was made part of the First Amendment.
[Monumental
controversy]
Paul
L. Puckett
Monumental controversy: U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson has ruled it
unconstitutional to display this granite monument inscribed with the Ten
Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama state Supreme Court. Roy
Moore, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, notes that the Commandments
are "the moral foundation of our law...."
TNA:
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws "respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The U.S. Circuit Court in your case ruled that a Ten Commandments monument in an
Alabama state court building was a violation of the First Amendment's
establishment clause. How exactly do your actions as a state chief justice
amount to Congress establishing a national church?
Moore:
I know what you are talking about; you are asking about [the
First Amendment applying only to] Congress. I understand the debate between
those who would say that the 14th Amendment put the strictures of the First
Amendment to the states. They fail to recognize the defeat of the Blaine
Amendment in Congress in the mid-1800s.* But that is not really the point. The
point is that knowledge of God is not prohibited under the First Amendment. And
indeed, it is the right of the states to acknowledge God, as it is the right of
the federal government to
acknowledge its source of power. The state of Alabama has a specific interest
in this, since the first sentence of our constitution says that "to
establish justice" we must invoke "the favor and guidance of Almighty
God."
TNA:
Are you establishing a state religion with the monument?
Moore:
The judge in his own words said that he did not have the
expertise to define the word "religion." In fact, in a 79-page
opinion he used the word "religion" or "religious" close to
150 times and can't define the term. He said that I was establishing a religion,
and it is very curious as to how a court can say you are doing something when
that court can't even define what you are doing. This is true of many federal
courts around the country. They misunderstand the First Amendment.
TNA:
Judge Thompson ruled that the Ten Commandments monument is "an
obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion," but
then failed to make clear what religion your monument was proselytizing on
behalf of. The written opinion first stated that it proselytized on behalf of
your personal religion, though the decision never mentioned the denomination you
belong to or defined the creed you affirm. Later the judge stated that it
proselytized on behalf of Christianity. Why a reproduction of the Ten
Commandments would proselytize on behalf of
Christianity alone and not Judaism, when both faiths hold fast to the Ten
Commandments, was likewise unexplained. Why was the judge so vague about the
establishment of the particular religion this monument would supposedly create?
Moore:
The judge was unclear because he can't define the term
"religion." And that's not only true with this judge, but also with
many of the federal courts across our land who seem to think, erroneously, that
the acknowledgement of God is synonymous with religion. Indeed, the
acknowledgement of God is not synonymous with religion. The definition of the
term "religion" -- taken from George Mason, James Madison, and the
United States Supreme Court -- was "the duty which we owe to our Creator,
and the manner of discharging it," which is your form of worship or
articles of faith. The definition of religion is plain in history; it is
plain in law; and it is what the federal courts are now disregarding.
TNA:
The press made a big deal about how you were, in their words,
"sneaking" the monument into the building "in the middle of the
night, without telling any of the other justices." Both the press and, to a
lesser extent, the circuit court opinion itself seem to imply that you employed
great secrecy in placing the monument in the court building rotunda and that you
exceeded your legal authority, perhaps even
breaking the law in the process.
Moore:
That is an absolutely ridiculous argument made to divert
attention from the true issue, which is the acknowledgement of God. You can't
sneak a two-and-a-half ton monument into a building without other people knowing
about it. Other people in this building knew about it, the administrative office
of courts knew about it, the marshals knew about it. And certainly, it was
planned [for installation] after work
hours, and it went on through the night, without a doubt. The words
"sneaking into the building in the middle of the night" are simply a
way to divert attention from the true issue. Indeed, it is my duty as lessee of
the building to determine what displays are in the building. And it is also my
duty under the [Alabama state] constitution to ensure that the administration of
justice is carried out. In accordance with our constitution, the establishment
of justice depends upon "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty
God." I am recognizing the source of our system of justice.
TNA:
The federal circuit court opinion makes a lot of hay out of the fact that some
people have gathered around the Ten Commandments monument to pray, implying that
this prayer has a negative impact on the administration of justice.
Moore:
According to Chief Justice John Jay: "The greater part of
evidence will always consist of the testimony of witnesses. This testimony is
given under those solemn obligations which an appeal to the God of Truth impose;
and if oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable
rights would become insecure." So in other words, recognition of a duty we
owe to God is a basis of testimony of witnesses. It is altogether proper for
people to recognize a sovereign
God. Indeed, in Alabama we are sworn in by our oaths "so help me God"
as
judicial officers, and even witnesses and jurors and grand jurors are sworn in
with that oath. To fail to recognize who that God is is not only illogical and
ridiculous, it is also detrimental to the court system.
TNA:
The three plaintiffs who filed suit to have the monument removed
from the courthouse claimed that the Ten Commandments were
"offensive" and made each of them feel like an "outsider."
With such basic common-sense principles as do not kill, do not steal, and do not
bear false witness, what possible objections could they have to the
Commandments?
Moore:
They object to the main one, which says there is a God. That's
what they don't like. They don't want to be reminded that there is an authority
higher than the authority of the state. And they don't like to be reminded that
William O. Douglass æ a very liberal associate justice, I might add æ in 1961,
in the case of McGowan v. Maryland, said "the institutions of our society
are founded on the belief that there is an authority higher than the authority
of the State; that there is a moral law which the State is powerless to alter;
that the individual possesses rights, conferred by the Creator, which the
government must respect,"
and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights enshrine those principles. They
don't like to be reminded that there is a God.
Furthermore,
they assert that because they are offended there is a
constitutional violation. Offensiveness is not the basis for a constitutional
violation. If it were, every Christian would be offended because the government
now precludes the acknowledgement of a God.
TNA:
The court heavily stressed alleged links between you and Dr.
Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries in its opinion.
Moore:
I know Dr. Kennedy and I know Coral Ridge Ministries. I have no
connection. They are not the source of what I do. To think that they are is
ridiculous, and the plaintiffs know better. It is an attempt to divert the issue
away from the acknowledgement of God. Coral Ridge Ministries has contributed to
the defense fund. I appreciate their contributions. I have nothing to do with
fundraising or the defense fund, and I have nothing to do with Coral Ridge
Ministries.
TNA:
In reading the circuit court decision, it appears that the
plaintiffs bringing the case against the monument and the court may object more
to you personally than to the Ten Commandments monument or to your official
behavior as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
Moore:
You should know that this [the decision] is simply a fulfillment
of their plan to distort the issue. I refer you to a July 16, 2002 letter from
the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Morris Dees, to Ayesha Khan, legal
director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. This case
was not tried until October 15th, and I am referring to a letter dated July 16th
æ three months prior. This is Morris Dees talking: "I also know that I am
a trial lawyer and believe one of my strengths is in telling a story, at least
that is what I am
told. A judge is nothing more than a jury when it comes to the facts.
You
might remember that, from the start, I was laying out our trial theme, i.e., how
this was the act of a lone religious nut in partnership with a fanatical church.
This is the story that will make this case so dirty that no appeals court will
reverse [Judge] Thompson to make new law."
TNA:
So their strategy from the beginning was one of side-stepping the
main issue of the propriety of the Ten Commandments monument and concentrating
on a character assassination job against you.
Moore:
From that quote, you can see that he intended to make that case
"dirty" so that no appeals court would "reverse Thompson to make
new law." How he knew Thompson was going to rule in his favor in July is
curious indeed.
The
plaintiffs in this case are making the rounds nationally for
fundraising purposes and distorting the issues, attempting to win by pure force
and intimidation. They won't.
TNA:
Have they objected to your behavior as a judge within the courtroom
as well as outside of the courtroom?
Moore:
Yes, they have objected to my behavior as a judge because I
reference the moral foundation of the law when we talked about sodomy, when we
talked about adultery, when we talked about separation of church and state. I go
back to the legal history that we have here in Alabama, our court case
precedents, and the foundations of law to show that these things comport with
the Scriptures from which we get our moral foundation. So yes, they do object to
my behavior as a judge in that my opinions reflect the moral foundation of the
law as well as the monument.
Do
they object to my behavior as a judge as far as running the court?
No,
I don't think so. They might object to some of my opinions, but they don't
object to my behavior as a judge. Of course, these people who are opposing what
I stand for will object to everything that I do.
TNA:
It seems to me that they are saying that someone who expresses
their beliefs as a Christian should be ineligible as a judge and that
intimidation and character assassination is their best way of enforcing this
doctrine.
Moore:
Sure. That's exactly it. You are hitting some of the basic
premises of what they are doing. They are objecting to me as a person because
of what I believe. That's a very accurate summation of their position.
TNA:
The court opinion talks endlessly about the supposed secular
potential for the Ten Commandments monument, in contrast with a holy or
religious purpose. In context, the court seems to be implying that
"secular" is synonymous with "meaningless," that the Ten
Commandments can only be displayed if they are displayed in a meaningless
context.
Moore:
Right. "Secular," in their sense, implies "with no relation to
God." Indeed, something can have a secular purpose and be relative to God.
The First Amendment to the Constitution reflects that concept recognized in the
Ten Commandments, that the duties we owe to God and the manner of discharging
those duties are outside the purview of government. That is a secular purpose.
It can have a secular purpose and
have a relationship to God because God was presumed to be both over the
state and the church, and separation of church and state was never meant to
separate God from government.
TNA:
Was the First Amendment primarily intended to protect against
specific denominations taking over the federal government?
Moore:
Basically. It separates the way you worship God from the state.
It can be larger than denominational; I'll say that. But our forefathers
perceived it as denominational.
TNA:
The key dangerous assertion of the court ruling appears to be the
claim that "the state may not acknowledge the sovereignty of the
Judeo-Christian God and attribute to that God our religious freedom."
Moore:
We are asserting exactly the opposite, that the state must
acknowledge God and that our freedoms flow from that God, the Judeo-Christian
God.
TNA:
That was specifically and pointedly repudiated by the court opinion.
Moore:
Yes. Anytime you deny the acknowledgement of God you are
undermining the entire basis for which our country exists. Rights come from
God, not from government. If government can give you rights, government can take
them away from you. If God gives you rights, no man and no government can take
them away from you. That was the premise of the organic law of this country,
which is the Declaration of Independence. Because, if there is no God, then
man's power is the
controlling aspect, and therefore power will be centralized.
[Solemn
affirmation]
Paul
L. Puckett
Solemn
affirmation: "... if oaths should cease to be held sacred," warned
Supreme Court Chief Justice (and Federalist Papers co-author) John Jay,
"our dearest and most valuable rights would become insecure."
>From
our nation's earliest beginnings, our public institutions have
recognized God's sovereignty, and our accountability to Him.
TNA:
There have been some encouraging Supreme Court decisions in recent
years restricting or reversing federal usurpations of state and local
jurisdictions and violation of individual rights, but overall that does not seem
to have halted the relentless trend of the federal legislative, executive, and
judicial branches to centralize and concentrate power. Do you see this as a
serious problem?
Moore:
I see it as a serious problem because we have forgotten that
centralized power is not what the federal constitution was about. I see the
centralization of power as not in conformance with the federal system of our
Constitution, which recognizes sovereign states.
The
basic premise of the Constitution was a separation of powers and a
system of checks and balances because man was perceived as a fallen creature
and would always yearn for more power. It was Jefferson himself who said:
"In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man; but
bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." The whole
basis of the Constitution was a restriction of power, and the whole basis of the
federalist system was that there was not one sovereign centralized power from
which all authority flows.
There
were sovereign states that had certain rights, and the Tenth
Amendment, which said: "The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
TNA:
So where do we go from here?
Moore:
Acknowledge our rights and our God, and stand for what we
believe. And as it states in the Bible, "having done all, to stand."
*
The Blaine Amendment was a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that
passed the House of Representatives but failed to pass the U.S. Senate in 1875.
Named after its author, Speaker of the House James G. Blaine (R-Maine), the
Blaine Amendment stipulated that "no State shall make any laws respecting
an establishment of religion," and that no public funds could go to
religious denominations. If Judge Thompson and the U.S. Supreme Court are
correct in asserting that the First Amendment was "made binding upon the
states through the 14th amendment," the 14th
Amendment (adopted eight years earlier in 1867) would have made the
Blaine Amendment unnecessary. -- Ed.