The following clips are taken from a discussion on a Libertarian mailing list in regard to "Roy's Rock," the two-ton monument to Christianity in American law, beginning with the Ten Commandments, recently removed from the rotunda of the Alabama state judicial building. These are NOT official stances of the Libertarian Party on the issue; it's just how I feel.
First, the display in Alabama of the Ten Commandments is not a historical representation of law, but a blatantly religious symbol. Indeed, the first two commandments are exclusively religious, with zero application to modern secular law.
Second, the monument was paid for and placed by the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. In this he used his power to do what private citizens of other religions- Wicca, for example, or Islam- would never be permitted to do: place a monument to his religious beliefs on public property, in a public place, where thousands of people per day cannot help but view it and believe, falsely, that the monument is sponsored by the government.
Note: After writing this, I learned that Roy Moore not only opposed efforts to have a smaller memorial placed in the rotunda to Martin Luther King, Jr., but ordered the courthouse doors locked in the face of those who wanted to place the memorial. Evidently, not even his fellow Christians are allowed to place anything that might compete with Roy's Rock.
Third, arguments that all religions could have equal access to government property are spurious. Many religions, such as Hindu, Buddhism, certain sects of Shinto, Wicca, Voudoun and Satanism, have symbols or images which would be prohibited from public display in the United States as obscene or otherwise objectionable. Thus, displays on public property is de facto restricted to only those religions the public finds acceptable- Christianity and Judaeism.
The First Amendment enumerates the right of the citizen not to be subjected to laws which promote or prefer one religion over another. Displays are, due to existing public decency standards, inherently unequal, prefering Christianity and Judaeism over other religions. The only way government can meet its obligation to treat all religions equally is to deny public religious displays on government property to all religions.
Finally, there is the question of whether or not a display, made by an elected or appointed public official, is or is not a government display. My view is that the actions of a public servant, whether or not they are backed by the law of the land, constitute acts of government. The threat of power which government bases its authority upon carries over to every member and official of that government; thus, acts which they may perform in their private function can, in the public arena, have significant coercive effect.
Allowing a judge to post the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, or on the courthouse lawn, or anyplace besides his public property, is unequal treatment under the First Amendment unless all other religions shall have a right to post their own symbols in the same places. If we are to have freedom of religion, we cannot allow politicians to use their personal power to press their own beliefs upon the public without equal opportunity for competing views.
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from violating the rights of American citizens, especially those enumerated in the Bill of Rights but not limited to those.
The applicable text of the First Amendment is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . ."
I grant that the meaning of the phrase 'respecting an establishment of religion' has changed in the past two hundred years. However, even if the original letter of the law did not extend to 'giving preference to one religion over another,' the spirit of the law, and of equality, demand that we apply such an interpretation as a matter of principle.
The only private aspect of the monument in question is its funding; it was not paid for in tax dollars. It is placed in the rotunda of a state courthouse, where it is impossible to avoid and where other, competing religions cannot place monuments of their own. It was placed there by a man who holds an office of public trust, using the authority given him under the laws of Alabama to do something which no private citizen could do. It was done entirely upon his own authority, without recourse to any authority which could see to it that other religions had equal access.
As for the argument that the monument is one to law rather than religion, I submit to you that any monument whose inscription begins with: "I am the Lord thy God. Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me." cannot avoid being religious. The inscriptions on the -sides- of the monument (which include a large 'One Nation Under God' motto) make even more plain that the monument is not to law, but an altar to the Judaeo-Christian God.
Now, if this monument were placed by a private citizen (which a Supreme Court justice is not), or if the monument was placed there with permission of some authority which all citizens could apply to to place their monuments (which it was not), or if the monument was placed on private rather than public property... if these conditions had applied, then there would be no question of it being a violation of freedom of religion.
Instead, a state official paid for a monument, placed it in the courthouse on his sole authority and in such a manner that no other person could compete with the monument. The monument is clearly a religious, and not a legal, statement of opinion, backed by the tacit threat of the coercive authority of the office of the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
To my mind the violation of rights, and the abuse of power, could not be clearer.
Finally, you ask how my stance is libertarian. Not to jump to conclusions or anything, but the arguments you present, and the urgency with which you present them, leads me to believe that you FAVOR state governments using their power to promote Christianity over other religions, and to promote Christian viewpoints above others. To me, such religious bigotry is inherently anti-libertarian, and the only way government- and its officials- can avoid violating the religious rights of the individual is to avoid religious matters altogether.
The Roman Empire, prior to Constantine, allowed the worship of virtually all religions... provided that the people -also- worshipped the Emperor. Christians were persecuted because they refused to sacrifice in the Emperor's temples.
If the Alabama Chief Justice is upheld, a similar 'freedom' will result- worship anything you like, but you must worship and revere our God as well. Those who refuse to worship and revere the Christian God, and who are offended by government endorsement of that Christian God, will find themselves persecuted as well, unable to secure equal treatment or justice under Christian law.
There is no right to not be offended, this is true; however, the government has no right to offend. Nor does it have any right to give preferential treatment to any religion, to any extent, for any reason, no matter how large the majority.
The only fair position the LP can take- the only fair position government can take- on religion is that government should do absolutely, positively nothing which favors any religion over any other, or which discriminates against any religion.
The Mosher Bible can only be justified if it either sits on private property or if there is an open and established mechanism allowing any religious group to place their own monuments or memorials on the courthouse property as well, without discrimination to any for creed or content.
Since such an open system is impractical on many levels, it is more proper to simply ban all religious displays on public property, lest those who disagree with the displays find themselves deprived of their proper share of the free and equal usage of that property.
This is the crux of my objection to Moore's big stone block; not only is it a statement of prejudice in favor of the imposition of Christian morality upon the law, it is an unequal usage of public property. Those Alabamians who disagree with Moore's beliefs have no recourse to reclaim their share of the right to use that public property, except to sue to have the monument removed. They are not allowed to place their own monument; they had no say in the monument which was placed there; and even had the matter been brought up to a majority vote, still they should have had the right to place their competing beliefs in precisely the same manner and general location as Moore got to place his.
The monument, in short, violates the religious rights of every single Alabamian who objects to the Ten Commandments being placed in a government building- a group which includes not a few Christians. It also violates their PROPERTY rights, in that one man has proven himself able to decide what is and is not put on display in a public place. By my count, that's a violation of the rights of four million, four hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine Alabamians, give or take a hundred million, less those who by happenstance agree with Justice Moore.
The monument is beyond doubt a religious statement. It contains ten commandments, four of which have nothing whatsoever to do with matters outside those of personal conscience. The fact that, in the past, these have been codified into secular law only demonstrates that, in the past, grave abuses of individual rights have taken place.
Chief Justice Moore's creation of the monument is unfortunate, in that a justice is supposed to be and appear impartial, and Moore's loud statements in the media make his bias painfully clear. When he used his power as Chief Justice to place this monument in the center of the state courthouse, where it can not be avoided by those who have business there, that was not merely unfortunate, that was abuse of power. Regardless of his positions as a private citizen, his approval of the placement of the monument constitutes an endorsement of the monument and its message by the Alabaman government... and a lot of other people in that government, including all eight other Supreme Court Justices, are rightfully angry about that.
The First Amendment prohibited Congress from inhibiting free worship or supporting any official religion; the Fourteenth Amendment protected this American right against religious coercion from state action as well. No state government, nor any state official, may take any action which favors any religion over any other. This is the supreme law of the federal union, to which all governments within the Union, federal, state, and local, are liable.
Justice Moore's placement of his monument is a violation of this vital separation of church and state; he is attempting to use his government office to promote his religion, something which is strictly forbidden. If he is upheld, then so long as no actual law is passed banning any specific religion, government may pressure and intimidate the minority into conforming to the religious views of the majority.
Finally, the monument itself is a symptom of something greater, something which should be dreaded by all Americans, Christian, Pagan, or whatever. It is a sign that judges are on the bench who show contempt for those who do not hold public office, whose personal beliefs and morals do not agree with their own. It is a sign that these judges believe that they are justified by a Higher Power in violating the secular laws we, as Americans, depend upon for the protection of our precious freedom.
In short, the monument is the first sign of a tyrant. Take heed, and take action.
This page last updated August 30, 2003.