|
I too am experiencing dissonance on this issue - on one hand I see the reasoning behind the decision to remove it viz. the separation of church and state; on the other hand the wish of the judge to keep it within the courthouse.
Are we to enforce the suppression of visible displays of beliefs to the extent of crucifixes around the necks of those in public office?
Or, if one has an iconic artefact or small religious picture in their chambers, should that be allowed? For, if the argument that it is inappropriate to display it is based on the fact it implies a religious bias in decisions, then surely other small examples would do the same thing?
For any religious bias to be present it is perhaps irrelevant that a large monument is displayed or not; if bias was there (in that courthouse or others) [and for the sake of discussion it should not be] then it might have been just as present in the 'men' passing judgment over their peers who had not placed any monuments in their courthouses.
It's somewhat like a notion the best person to teach religious studies is an agnostic. Is the best person to sit in a courthouse one who is devoid of religous beliefs? Granted he is there to make decision based on fact/democratically made laws, not preconcieved religious beliefs, but if he has beliefs they shall be inherent in him regardless of what monuments happen to be in the foyer. Doubtless people have said the fact there was such a visible monument placed is clear evidence Moore has problems setting aside his religious beliefs to make fair decisions. That is questionable, whether there is a monument present or not one can still have certain views - simply less visibly expressed ones.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Did such a monument really prevent that?
From article: Moore, who maintains that the Ten Commandments have a place in public buildings because they are the "moral foundation" of American law, has vowed to fight for his job and has enlisted former Supreme Court justice Terry Butts to defend him during the judicial inquiry.
This is a jurist argument, jurism being the study of law (not the statutes which make it up but the motives behind the system - moralistic, religious etc). Arguably Judeo-Christian beliefs do have a bearing on the laws which make up the United States and Commonwealth countries, and beyond. Take "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thy shalt not steal" etc. The academic question is whether there is a historic common similarity between present law and religion or whether it goes beyond that to the point where justices are enforcing not just the laws of men but the laws of (less accountable!) deities handing down edicts to their prophets.
I'm reminded of the sweet film, "A Miracle on 34th Street". Attention in it was drawn to the dollar bills which carry upon them the statement "In God We Trust". If we are to take that point, then there were 'mini-monuments' contained in the pockets of so many people in so many courtrooms, across Alabama and beyond. And a clear statement on the acceptability of separation of Church v. State on every note.
The root of the furore seems to be not whether a monument was displayed or not - that is just a factor. The outrage is over the notion he (Moore) or others who would do this CANNOT make rational decisions based on what their job allows but only on those+religious teachings. This surely is an insult to their intelligence. We cannot vet everyone for public office to ensure they have no religious beliefs - "just in case".
From article: For others, including Justice Douglas Johnstone, leader of the courthouse movement to overrule Moore, it signified a stand against the threat of America becoming "a theocracy."
From dictionary.com definition of 'theocracy': 1) Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity. 2) Government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
It is a highly tenuous stretch to compare Moore with a figure (priest) who posits to be a direct representative of God (and His word). It is a similar 'stretch' to suggest this issue suggests a Government ruled by or not independent of religious authority. The current President of the United States George Walker Bush and MANY before him have had religious beliefs and no hesistance to be seen in public praying/at a service, or fear of backlash for doing so.
Interesting debate, with many sides. Thanks for bringing it up.
N.B Masculine pronoun is used above for brevity and ease of reading only, I am aware there are many great women in the judiciary and public office at every level.
|