While there have been dozens of rulings striking down Ten Commandments displays (another indication that federal judges need to be appointed to the courts who are well-versed in original constitutional understandings); no ruling has been more publicized than that against Judge Roy Moore in Alabama. In that case, the 11th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 5,280 pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building.

The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed suit against the Ten Commandments display on behalf of three attorneys. And why did those attorneys want the monument removed? They alleged that they had been “personally offended” by the monument and “as a result, suffered direct injury.” A three-judge panel of the 11th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with them and prohibited the display.

In order to reach their decision, the panel of federal judges transformed themselves into an ecclesiastical council of theologians. They ruled that the version of the Commandments posted by Judge Moore was a “Protestant” version and that “Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox faiths use different parts of their holy texts as the authoritative Ten Commandments.”

Strange! I thought that “Do not kill” and “Do not steal” meant the same regardless of the version! In fact, I am not aware of any person in America who, after seeing the granite monument, would cry out, “I have just seen the 9th command forbidding perjury, but it is a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments that I just saw, so I cannot obey it for I am a Lutheran (or a Catholic, or a Jew, or whatever).”

The 11th Circuit had ignored an elementary principle of law—and thus a fundamental responsibility of the courts: establish the spirit and intent of a law before making any ruling about it. Signer of the Constitution John Dickinson had explained the importance of this legal principle:

[N]othing is more certain than that the forms of liberty may be retained when the substance is gone. In government, as well as in religion, “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” 2 Cor. 3:6

Actually, the Ten Commandments themselves were the result of God's demonstration of this principle. When God delivered the Commandments, He told Moses “According to the tenor of those words I have made a covenant with you” (Exodus 34:27). That is, God Himself declared that the Ten Commandments were merely the general theme (the tenor) of what He wanted - that is, “Don't steal,” “Don't kill,” “Don't commit perjury,” etc. were simply the summation of over 600 laws given at or about the same time.

That these laws simply represent the spirit of all civil and criminal laws was made clear by an elderly Texas woman, Esther Armstrong. Despite her advanced years, Esther maintained a ministry in local prisons and jails, frequently visiting the inmates, all of who considered her as their own grandmother. One day, one of the “jail-house-attorney” inmates (a prisoner who has become obsessed with the study of the law) told Esther in amazement: “Mama Esther? Did you realize that there are over one-hundred thousand laws that will put you in jail?” To which she promptly replied, “Do you realize that there are Ten that will keep you out?”

Nevertheless, the federal judges refused to consider the general purpose of the Commandments. Instead, they focused on theological minutia about which version of the Ten Commandments was on display (which they apparently felt completely competent to address) much in the same way that theologians of former generations vigorously debated such useless and inane topics as how many angels would fit on the head of a pin. Perhaps only a liberal activist judge, an ACLU attorney, or a member of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (i.e., groups and individuals who have demonstrated their distaste for religion in general) would make this “theological” distinction - as they did in this case. I am quite sure that Judge Moore - just like 99.9 percent of Americans - was not aware (nor would he have cared) that there were allegedly different theological versions of the Commandments; as a judge he was concerned with general behavior, not theology. Furthermore, I firmly believe that no matter which version of the Ten Commandments Judge Moore would have displayed - whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or one of each - the same arguments still would have been used against him.

The three theologians (Oops! My bad!!! I meant the three judges) in the 11th Circuit who delivered the decision even personally impugned Moore, comparing him to “those Southern governors who attempted to defy federal court orders during an earlier era.” Amazing! Apparently in the minds of those judges, Judge Moore's displaying the Ten Commandments must be a sin akin to racism! The three also forcefully pronounced to Moore a warning that when the time came, he would obey their order to remove the Commandments.

Following the 11th Circuit's decision, federal district judge Myron Thompson (who originally ruled against Moore before the case rose to the 11th Circuit) promptly issued his own order that the monument be removed - now! - even before Judge Moore's appeal to the Supreme Court had been filed. Judge Moore refused to comply with that order, and hundreds rallied outside the court building in an effort to prevent the removal of the monument. Dozens who exercised their First Amendment right “peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” were handcuffed and arrested, including an elderly woman in a wheel chair - one among hundreds willing to resort to peaceful civil disobedience in order to preserve respected symbols of our nation's heritage as well as the constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Amazing! Americans are being arrested for trying to preserve the nation's moral law rather than break it!

This same type of peaceful civil disobedience eventually turned the tide in the civil rights' protests of the early 1960s. When Americans saw blacks arrested and beaten by police simply for sitting in the wrong seat on a bus, or going to the wrong table in a cafe, public sentiment propelled legislators to action to provide a political solution. Such may well be the effect of the current arrests—if they continue for an extended period. Perhaps the current publicity will cause Christians to stand up not only for this display but also for those in their own local communities.

Interestingly, voices of condemnation against Judge Moore have been raised around the nation, alleging that he refuses to follow “the rule of law.” Such claims constitute some of the more civically-illiterate statements made in recent years. Consider: in every student civics or government book in America is a page on “How a Bill Becomes a Law.” Anyone who examines those pages will notice that the judiciary has no role in making law; laws come from bills passed by the legislature and signed by the president or governor. Since no such law has been passed in this case, what “rule of law” is Judge Moore not upholding? Can it actually be that these critics talking about “the rule of law” believe that an order by a single unelected federal judge is actually the equivalent of a law? Apparently so. Don't misunderstand: this is not to suggest that judicial rulings should be ignored based on the personal predilections of an individual in a case; however, this ruling goes against every deeply embedded legal standard in America's common law, and Judge Moore's refusal is not based solely on his selfish or personal inclinations. (To learn how deeply the Ten Commandments have been implanted into American law and traditions, read our legal brief on this issue.)

Following Judge Myron Thompson's edict, the other eight justices on the Alabama Supreme Court announced their unanimous opposition to Judge Moore's position and agreed to cooperate in the removal of the monument. Judge Moore was subsequently suspended from his judgeship by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission for his refusal to comply with the federal judge's order.

Importantly, Judge Moore is elected (as are the other eight State Supreme Court judges) and therefore ultimately accounts directly to the people of Alabama, who can have the final say on this issue. When that time comes, the decision of the voters likely will not agree with the State's other Supreme Court judges or the State's Judicial Inquiry Commission. Moore was already well-known for his stand for the Ten Commandments before he was elected to the Supreme Court (he had already won three legal decisions on the Ten Commandments at the time of his election) and recent polls show that 77 percent of the State supports the display.

The U. S. Congress is well aware of the situation in Alabama, and the House has already taken direct action. Rep. John Hostettler introduced, and the House overwhelmingly passed (260-161), an amendment that prohibits federal funds from being used to enforce the judicial order against the display. Similarly, Rep. Robert Aderholt has introduced (and the House has twice passed) the Ten Commandments Defense Act, allowing State and local communities rather than federal judges to have the final say in displays of the Ten Commandments; the Senate Democrats have killed the bill each time. Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) has introduced a bill (S 1558) that applies powers from Art. III, Sec. 2 of the U. S. Constitution to restrict the federal judiciary's right to rule on this issue, but the bill is not likely to move unless Democratic Senators feel substantial pressure to do so. The monument was eventually removed from the Rotunda and relocated in a remote non-public room in the building. This is simply a reconfirmation of the overall judicial message of recent years: if you must have a religious expression, it must be done in private (like pornography), not out in public where others can see it.