A promise for Alabama
by Daniel J. Sparks ~ May 14, 2006
Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has proven to be a man of his word. Certainly, no one doubts that. Judge Moore publicly promised to not remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court building after a federal district court ordered him to do so–and he followed through on that promise. He promised that he would continue to acknowledge God, no matter who said he couldn’t; and, because he is known as a man of his word, an Alabama kangaroo court of inquisition removed him from office.
Judge Moore has publicly pledged that, if he is elected governor, he will “return Alabama to the people.” He has spelled out specifically what he means by that phrase and promised to follow through on each point. Judge Moore will continue to acknowledge God, the source of all civil authority and the Judge of all man’s deeds; he will continue to uphold his oath to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 in seeking the divine guidance of Almighty God and acknowledging God’s law as the foundation of all true law. Judge Moore will defend the right of every public official to acknowledge God.
He has also pledged not to raise taxes. Judge Moore is a man that can be trusted when he makes such a statement (unlike the current governor who made a similar promise and then tried to effect the largest tax increase in Alabama history).
Does anyone doubt that Judge Moore will fulfill his promises? I don’t doubt him because he’s shown himself to be trustworthy.
And, even more important than maintaining fidelity with the citizenry, Judge Moore realizes that he has no authority except that which is subjected to the authority of God. He knows that he cannot make or enforce any law–or supposed law–that contradicts the moral law of God. He knows that, when he swears an oath with the words “So help me God”, that God will judge his faithfulness to that oath.
I’ve written before of Judge Moore, the Ten Commandments, the public acknowledgement of God, etc.; so I will not repeat all of it here. I shall simply say that, although Judge Moore is only a fallen, sinful creature redeemed by God’s grace, he is wholeheartedly committed to the cause of Christ; he is completely dedicated to doing right in the sight of God, no matter what men may think or do. May we all live in such a manner. I pray that the people of Alabama will elect Judge Moore to be our next governor. We need such a godly man at such a time as this.
PDF 
Daniel J. Sparks is a traditional Anglican priest and military chaplain.
May 14, 2006 at 11:34 pm UTC
One might argue that he also promised to uphold the law and when the legal system ordered him to remove the commandments he broke that promise by refusing. I tend to agree that the commandments should have been allowed to remain but once the courts ordered their removal they should have been removed, a response to the courts should have been sought in other ways. That was not the time for civil disobedience, especially from a chief justice. In my opinion, his actions were rash and irresponsible.
May 15, 2006 at 5:54 am UTC
Chris, remember that courts don’t make law.
Also, the federal district court ordered Judge Moore to remove the monument on grounds of the First Amendment. Of course, the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…” Thus, if Congress can make no such law, no such law can be broken.
And, amidst the court’s pontification on the First Amendment, it also said that it could not define the term “religion” but that Judge Moore had clearly endorsed a particular religion.
Also, the federal district judge stated that he would not enforce his injunction to have the monument removed so long as appeals were in process. The appeals process was still continuing at the time the federal judge gave a deadline on complying with the injunction; so, the federal judge actually violated his own order. In fact, the appeals process was not completed until November 2003, some time after the monument was removed and some time after Judge Moore had been removed from office.
Judge Moore’s oath of office stated that he would uphold the Alabama Constitution of 1901. The federal district court did not make any ruling that the state constitution was in any way in violation of the federal constitution. The Alabama Constitution recognizes–at the very beginning–the dependence of our state upon the authority of God. Judge Moore was doing nothing less than what the constitution does by acknowledging God as the moral source for civil law; that was his purpose for installing the monument. The federal court specifically stated that the state cannot acknowledge God.
I would deem it the utmost irresponsibililty and treachery to refuse to acknowledge God simply because a man told me to do so. Caesar’s authority comes from the hand of God and Caesar has no jurisdiction over the duties owed to God.
I’ve written in more detail about the facts of the case in these previous article that you may find of interest:
The The Honorable William Pryor?
The Treachery of Bill Pryor
June 19, 2006 at 12:20 pm UTC
So does your faith not allow that others might not share it? It seems to me that the question of what the courts can or cannot do, or what the judge can or cannot do, are neither here nor there.
We have here a civic place, one which should symbolise the equality of all who enter there; the right to be treated the same regardless of race, color or creed, and a very partisan peice of sculpture and reading. It would be hard for a person who does not feel kinship with that religion (or any religion) to feel comfortable, at home, and like they were to be treated equally.
That is what t his case is about. It’s not some attack on Christianity, or on religion or faith. It’s about merely saying that your faith should drive who you are, should inform all aspects of your person and your behaviour, and you should live it joyously and with vigour, but you should not seek to impose it. You should not seek to use it as a weapon.
Frankly Fr. Sparks, every beleiving Christian who walks through that courthouse has those words engraved on his or her heart – or should if he or she seeks to invoke Christ’s name. Christianity is not under seige, and if it were, what would a stone monument do anyway? If you believe your faith is under siege then educate, love, minister and live your faith daily. That will make those unbelievers around you want to know more, and know healing.
But dragging your faith into the public, civic (and yes, secular) square, demanding the privelege of place, and then whining about anti-Christian sentiment when you’re defeated will never, I promise you (as a former Christian and current non-believer) win you one single soul for Christ or your Church.
Because that IS the rub isnt’ it? Does the judge just want to show off about Christianity? Does he just want to reiterate some priveleged place he believes that Christianity has in the history of his state and country? Or does he truly want to influence people to follow Jesus and be saved?
Because if the latter, he’s not doing a very good job. How many souls were saved in anger?
June 19, 2006 at 1:22 pm UTC
Mark, barring a few spelling mistakes (for the record: privilege) I think that was well said. I am a believer and very firm in my beliefs but when I saw what Moore was doing my reaction was annoyance because he came across not as someone lovingly presenting Christianity, not even as a citizen trying to promote religious liberty, but as someone with an agenda to push and enough pride to try and force the issue.
June 19, 2006 at 7:19 pm UTC
Mark, I’m afraid both you and Chris will never understand this issue at all so long as you insist on your assumption that Judge Moore was trying to Christianize the populace by installing the monument. The monument was never about trying to make “rice Christians”. The monument was about the state acknowledging God, as it always has in these United States. Both Judge Moore, the federal Judge Thompson, and the plaintiffs who brought this case to federal court all agreed that the issue was the public acknowledgement of God.
Nothing about the monument induced anyone to fall and worship before it. The idea that the monument could compel passersby to suddenly believe that which they before did not isn’t a reasonable suggestion.
If you remember, the monument was in place for about a year with no controversy. It wasn’t Judge Moore who brought this case to the courts. I think you can hardly accuse him of seeking to push his own agenda. Judge Moore did no less than countless others before him have done–acknowledge that the rights of the citizens of Alabama come from the hands of Almighty God, not from the will of governors, judges, or legislators. That’s why the monument was in place.
It is because this nation was founded on the Christian religion that our forefathers put in place the structures of liberty. We enjoy the liberty of conscience today because the founders respected the law of God. The atheist, the pagan, and the heretic all benefit from the Christian foundation of this nation. No one has sought to deprive them of those benefits. Why? Because we recognize that we haven’t the right or ability to deprive other persons of their inalienable rights that come only from the hand of God.
By whom would you rather be judged: man (with the whims and flaws of his depraved nature) or God (with his unchanging mercy, compassion, and justice)?
June 19, 2006 at 7:21 pm UTC
By the by, I am personally aware of numerous souls who now cleave to the Christian religion because Judge Moore was willing to stand for a society based on transcendent justice.
June 19, 2006 at 7:30 pm UTC
so long as you insist on your assumption that Judge Moore was trying to Christianize the populace by installing the monument
This has never been my claim and I don’t believe this to be the case. What I do believe is that Moore was executing pride and trying to create a battle. He was defending nothing; this was a fight he was trying to stir up.
Say what you will about his good intentions to honor God, I just don’t believe it. His example and history speak otherwise.
Also, inasmuch as I will defend to the end the right to practice Christianity in America, I will recognize that this nation was founded on the principle of the rights of all people to worship as they will. Many of the founding fathers were Christian, many were not. But they were in agreement about defending the rights of all people to worship as they will. To this end I don’t think it is wrong to have religious displays in public places. Put another way, as I’ve stated before I think Moore was within his rights to have his display, even if its only purpose was to stroke his ego. But I will hesitate to call America a Christian nation. A nation can never be Christian. It is the people of a nation that can or can not be Christian, as they choose. Trying to force the issue and call an apple a car just can’t work; an apple can never be a car and a nation can never be Christian or anything else. What it can be is free. It may well be argued that some of those freedoms are being challenged today, and I think there are good ways to respond to those challenges. Moore’s actions don’t fall under the category of a good way to respond.
June 19, 2006 at 7:37 pm UTC
Fr. Sparks, respectfully, the question of whether the founding fathers of the USA felt they were founding a specifically Christian country or not are in fact a matter of some debate. I would suggest that it was founded by Christians, not founded to be a Christian country. So your view of the matter in that regard is flawed. Jefferson was closer to what you’d call a secular humanist than to a born-again Christian.
As for the assertion of it not inducing anyone to fall and worship, that wasn’t my point. My point, to use a specific ‘for instance’ is this: Imagine I walk into that court house for my divorce or custody hearing before Judge Moore (forgive me the example if he’s not a family court judge, but work with me on this) So there i am, an avowed non-beleiver, let’s say even that I’m an atheist. And on my way into court, to argue custody before Judge Moore, against my born-again, bible-toting, ex-wife. Now, in that situation, do you think that I – a tax-paying, home-owning, citizen of the state (in this example) – will feel? Do you think that I’m going to be confident that the Judge will fairly adjudicate the matter based on law? Whether he will or not we don’t know… but you can be certain that I won’t feel like he will.
By putting up a monument to one god, one faith (regardless of how we conclude about the founders) in its symbolism and its execution excludes anyone and everyone who is NOT of that faith.
And finally, I’d rather be judged by men. Because I can reason with them. I can’t reson with what I beleive to be a figment of someone’s imagination. I’m not meaning to offend, but there’s no point in tip-toeing around it. The fact is I don’t want to be judged by God, Allah, Yaweh, Thor, or anyone.
And more imporatant than even that… I certainly don’t want to be judged by any human’s (flawed by nature) interpretation of God’s intention.
June 19, 2006 at 7:42 pm UTC
Chris, whether we live in a “Christian nation” or not is a topic that I haven’t addressed on this blog–or much of anywhere else in any depth. (However, regarding our founding father, most of them were Christian–the vast majority of them.) I’m not sure that the use of this label is necessarily related to the issue of the monument
To say that Judge Moore was prideful doesn’t address the point. You haven’t offered any evidence (unless I’ve overlooked it) that Judge Moore was motivated by pride. Other than this, you’ve said the monument was fine. Thus, I’m confused why you have a problem with it.
June 19, 2006 at 7:43 pm UTC
Mark, I did want to respond on one thing:
Now, in that situation, do you think that I – a tax-paying, home-owning, citizen of the state (in this example) – will feel? Do you think that I’m going to be confident that the Judge will fairly adjudicate the matter based on law?
It isn’t the purpose of the courts to make you feel comfortable or secure in the courtroom. It seems to me that such feelings are pretty much already gone by the time you end up in the room. Whether or not a judge is doing the job fairly tends to be worked out around election time.
June 19, 2006 at 7:48 pm UTC
To say that Judge Moore was prideful doesn’t address the point. You haven’t offered any evidence (unless I’ve overlooked it) that Judge Moore was motivated by pride. Other than this, you’ve said the monument was fine. Thus, I’m confused why you have a problem with it.
I defend his right to display the monument, even though I think his motives are bad. I have no overt evidence of his motives, it’s just what my gut tells me. Where I fault Moore is how he responded to orders that he remove the monument. He won nothing by keeping the monument up in defiance of orders. He should have removed the monument and sought other ways to continue the fight. As it is he pretty much lost any credibility to continue pressing the issue.
June 19, 2006 at 7:51 pm UTC
Mark, I haven’t asserted that this is a “Christian nation”, so we need not have that discussion. My statement was that this nation was founded on Christian principles. And, again, my assertion is that those who believe in any god or no god enjoy the protection of the right to hold those beliefs because the laws of this nation were founded on such Christian principles.
In fact, Mark, Judge Moore wrote opinions in cases with similiar circumstances to the one you mention as an example. In each case, as evidenced by his published written opinions, he examined the legal arguments of both sides before reaching a conclusion; and the legal arguments were not always favorable to the side of the “born-again, bible-toting, ex-wife”. There is a section in his book So Help Me God wherein Judge Moore addresses this particular concern. I’ll try to find the material for reference.
You’ve just told me that you would rather be judged by men (than God). However, just prior to making that statement, you assert that you don’t think Judge Moore could make an equitable or, perhaps, even moral judgement. It seems that your preference for man’s judgement must come with some qualifications.
June 19, 2006 at 7:54 pm UTC
Chris, I’ve addressed in other articles the points you raise in your last comment; so I will refrain from repeating my remarks here. I refer you to the two articles linked at the end of the original article above.
June 19, 2006 at 8:00 pm UTC
*sigh* Chris, i’m not saying that it is the court’s job to make me feel secure. the job of the court IS to be fair. Don’t discount, though, how we as a society send signals to each other, the presence or lack of symbols like this can send powerful messages as to what or who is acceptable here.
You’re right Fr. Sparks, I don’t feel that Judge Moore would be able to keep his faith sufficiently out of the deliberations. But in that there is still some opportunity for appeal. (or an election).
However, I think we can agree to disagree with regards to that. The fear I have with this is that there are many people, (maybe Moore, maybe not) who do not live their faith as an example to others, but use it as a heavy blunt intstrument. And it’s hard not to think that Moore was doing that.
And that’s what makes me saddest of all. I’ve read the bible (wasn’t always a non-believer) and I’ve yet to find where Jesus hates. Easy to see that on the news though.
June 19, 2006 at 8:16 pm UTC
Mark, I agree with you that there are people who abuse others in the name of God. This is wrong.
Yet, I don’t see where Judge Moore has done so. I fail to see how a monument that recognizes God as the source of American law is abusive of others. (Regardless of whether you or I or anyone else agrees with God’s law being the moral foundation of American law, that doesn’t change the fact that it is; the evidence is well documented in American history and jurisprudence.) Judge Moore has never advocated hatred (or violence) against those who are not Christian or those who are atheist. In fact, to the contrary–he’s insisted that each person is only accountable to God for his religious beliefs (Commandments I-IV), a true separation of church and state.
Christ loves all and he shows mercy to all and he metes justice to all. None of God’s characteristics is diminished by another.