Fair Courts

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Fair Courts Archives page.

Set in Stone? Alabama’s Commandment Conundrum

A stone monument to the Ten Commandments stands in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building. The sculpture spotlights a long-standing question: should public space be used to celebrate a particular religion?

The monument to Judeo-Christian principles may not be there much longer though, because July 1, 2003, a federal appeals court ordered its removal. Then again, the statue may be around for a while, because the Chief Justice of Alabama, Roy S. Moore, intends to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the appeals process can take a long, long time.

Moore on a mission

For about ten years now, Moore has been accused of collapsing the separation between church and state. In 1992, long before he was elected Chief Justice, he hung a woodcarving of the Ten Commandments on his courtroom wall and began opening his sessions with prayer. Another Alabama judge ordered him to stop, but Moore refused.

Moore got away with defying the court for several reasons: Alabama’s then Governor, Fob James, defended Moore (with state troopers and the National Guard, if necessary); thousands of supporters rallied in Montgomery; Congress passed a resolution supporting the display of the Ten Commandments in public places; and, the case against Moore was eventually dismissed on a technicality.

Faith or fame?

The publicity of Moore’s actions through the 1990s may have helped him to get elected to the state’s highest court in 2000. Not too long after being sworn in, Moore purchased the 5,280-pound granite statue of a large book displaying the Commandments and had it installed in the courthouse.

Offended by the monument, three lawyers decided to sue to have it removed. They claim that it violates the separation of church and state as it is established in the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." This amendment ensures freedom of religion and freedom from a state religion.

A line or a wall

Just how separate church needs to be from state is not clear. Even our nation’s founders disagreed on this one. James Madison claimed that the Bill of Rights “drew a line" between the two institutions, while Thomas Jefferson said that the document built a “wall of separation."

Sometimes, The Supreme Court must decide if a law has crossed the boundary between religion and state. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the court determined that Rhode Island and Pennsylvania had violated the First Amendment. These states used public funds to help pay the salaries of teachers of secular subjects at private religious schools. Some say that school vouchers re-enact this scenario, which has already been deemed unconstitutional. [For more on school vouchers, click here]

This case was especially important because it set a precedent for other separation-of-church-and-state cases. Chief Justice Warren Burger created a method for determining if a law is secular or endorses a religion, this method is called the “Lemon test." Burger’s decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman outlined three criteria that a statute must have in order to be deemed constitutional. The statute, object, or practice must have 1) a secular purpose; 2) a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; 3) no “excessive government entanglement with religion."

Moore’s monument doesn’t pass the ‘Lemon Test’ for now

The federal appeals court ruled that the monument must be removed because the First Amendment prohibits government from endorsing a religion over other religions or over no religion at all.

The court noted that the stone tablets display the Protestant version of the Commandments, which differ from the Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran, and Eastern Orthodox faith’s versions.

Moore’s defense

Justice Moore and his lawyer claim that the monument is merely a reminder that this nation was founded upon Christian principles. Moore says that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law and that there is nothing wrong with commemorating that.

Moore also reminded the press and the court that God references abound in government. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are “endowed by the Creator, with certain unalienable rights;" our dollar bill reads “In God we Trust;" and federal courts open with the prayer, “God save the United States and this Honorable court," not to mention the swearing in of witnesses.

One nation under God…

There is much scholarly debate about whether or not the founders of the United States incorporated their personal religious beliefs into our laws. We aren’t even sure just what their beliefs were.

Many of our government documents and court rituals refer to God, but there is no specific reference to any one religious belief. By contrast, Moore’s monument is specific to Protestantism.

The federal appeals court decided that the most powerful judge in Alabama does not have permission to honor his god on government property in this way. The court fears that if it allows Moore’s statue to stay in the courthouse, then government buildings across the nation “could be topped with a cross, or a menorah, or a statue of Buddha." This court and many people across the U.S. believe that religious iconography simply does not belong in government spaces.

Others feel that our public spaces can and, some think, should reflect the significance of Judeo-Christian tradition in our nation’s history.

What do you think? Sign up for one of our online forums. [Click here]

Posted on: 7/9/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top