The Ten Commandments Judge
"I will never deny the God upon whom our laws and country depend," declared Alabama's chief justice Roy Moore in the year 2003 of the Common Era, and his supporters cheered, fell to their knees and prayed outside of the state courthouse.
Judge Moore, the 'Ten Commandments Judge', was an Etoway County circuit judge. While serving in that lower capacity, he posted a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, and fought opponents over the display, wherefore the purportedly sovereign people of democratic Alabama were greatly pleased and elected him to lead the superior court, apparently not as an equal among equals. In 2002 Judge Moore set up another scene by placing a shrine to the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.
The fetish is a 5,300 pound granite block upon which a truncated and revised version of the Hebrew tribal commandments appear in the form of Moses' tablets. A waterfall serves as a backdrop to the shrine; people are kept at a distance with a velvet cord. Judge Moore declared the shrine to be a testament to the "moral foundation" that American justice is based on - sodomy is one of his main concerns. His supporters aver that the Hebrew tribal commandments are the "cornerstone of our nation."
The prominent courthouse display is quite attractive to all sides: some believe it is scenic while others claim it is obscene and want it removed. Certain complaints were made, and U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson ruled that the shrine violated the Constitutional prohibition against state sponsorship of religious doctrine. He ordered it removed to a private place and said he would impose a $5,000 fine if his order was disobeyed. Judge Moore disobeyed. His eight fellow judges on the superior court said they were "bound by solemn oath to follow the law" and directed that the monument to the Hebrew tribal god - now believed by Jewish Christians to be the Judeo-Christian god - be moved. Judge Moore, their chief executive, continued to demur: "I cannot forsake my conscience." he said. He promised to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court "to defend our constitutional right to acknowledge God." He said his colleagues had placed themselves "above God."
At this writing Judge Moore has been suspended from the bench with pay; and rightly so, for he has defied and defiled the first rule of law: the rule of law. The law itself may be right or wrong, but all are subject to its general rule including the government and its officers. The only conscionable disobedience of law is in extreme cases of intolerable breaches of justice. The rule of law is our first defense against tyranny, our shield against the so-called divine right of sovereign persons to arbitrarily dispose of the lives of their subjects at will. And now Judge Moore officially claims that absolute sovereignty for himself. Those who would uphold the rule of law against his tyranny are summarily dismissed by him for raising themselves above his subjective god. As for him, he would not raise himself above god but would be god, the absolute power which brooks no resistance to his will as uncommanded commander.
Judge Moore's justification for his arrogance is a regression to the monarchical or "one ruler" principle derived from the early monotheism of one- god tribal life: thou shalt have no other god (or ruler) before me, for I am the lord thy god. If any objection to the king's ruling is made, it is dismissed with a reference to "god's will", and, if god's will seems unjust, barbaric and cruel, we know that "His ways are mysterious." Ironically, the principle of sovereignty as it was interpreted by apologists for monarchy is contrary to ancient Hebrew tribal custom. The later doctrine of sovereignty was invented in response to civil strife, to rebellion against tyranny.
Almost all of us agree that, in extreme situations such as war, even in a democracy leaders are needed for an efficient defense or offense. Their commands must be obeyed - the commands can be questioned later in a democracy. Of course disobedience as a matter of conscience may be warranted, but that warrant comes from con-science or a rational social ethic which is of a higher order than mob psychology, and not from reliance on an indefinite, Supreme Anarch or Terrorist Almighty God of Chaos who is theoretically omnipotent and transcends all limitations
Threatened by the anarchy or revolution inspired by their abuses, the monarchs called upon their sophisticated ministers for a political theology to justify the continuation of tyranny. The kings' consciences ruled that, to live in peace, people need a sovereign power over them, to whom they should voluntarily submit to secure their lives - those who do not submit must be coerced to do so. Human nature being what it is, nearly seventy percent of people will submit to any recognized authority whether he is right or wrong, and most of them do not have nor do they want sufficient information upon which to make an independent judgement and act responsibly - for them, obedience is responsibility. What is wanted above all is security, and any order at all might do even if it is repressive; hence revolution is always in the hands of a minority.
Wherefore the will of the sovereign was rationalized by the sophists in order to justify arbitrary action by resort to something besides "god's will." Hence sovereignty is expedient and convenient for peaceful human existence. Sovereignty must be perpetual: it is not the sort of power that can be entrusted to others for a period of time, for that would contradict the principle of sovereignty in an uncommanded commander. Sovereignty must be absolute because, if conditions were put on it, such as having other authorities restrain it, there would be no sovereign principle. Sovereignty must be indivisible, for, if it were not, conflicts would arise among the divisions and there would be no sovereignty. In fine, the sovereign is above the law and he can lay down laws for others at his discretion but not obey them himself if he chooses not to.
The sovereign then is god on Earth and there is no other god before him; of course he may point his finger to empty space as the source of his authority. This is the principle resorted to by Judge Moore of Alabama in respect to his relatively minor position as chief justice of a smaller state. That is not to belittle the importance or significance of his office to those who suffer his occupation of it. For instance, he took away a mother's three children from her because she is gay. He cited Alabama's laws against sodomy in his brief as well as scripture, laws he felt bound to obey. He added later that Alabama law provides for the execution of criminals. When called to account for the remark, he hedged on the implication, and said that he did not mean a person should be murdered by the state for homosexual conduct. He said homosexuality was evil but that did not mean that he meant homosexual people themselves were evil - of course people are punished, not evil. Furthermore, he noted that lots of judges cite scripture. In this case he obviously demonstrated the sexual obssession of the ancient patriarchal tribal religion.
Fortunately, at least for the time being, the old sovereignty has been placed in the people. That is to say that the principle of the doctrine of sovereignty as rationalized by the monarch's lawyers has been successfully rebutted in respect to individuals, for now all individuals are theoretically subject to the law by, for, and of the people. Those officers who carry out the people's will wear the vestiges of the ancient principle of "my might is right" but they must answer to the sovereign people and not to subjective versions of gods who cannot even appear before the bar as lawyers or expert authorities. Of course people can elect and maintain a tyrant in office if the people's will be sovereign. Set against that possibility is the hopefully independent judiciary. And now Judge Moore repudiates the rule of law and cottons to the Alabama mob, giving them the judge they deserve because they elected him on the basis of his fundamentalist or regressive approach to law. Thankfully, other authorities in Alabama oppose his arrogation although they have not chastised him with a jail sentence for contempt - we suspect that if someone disobeyed Judge Moore's orders, she or he would be in jail for quite awhile.
If Judge Moore appeals and wins his case we shall honor the decision because this is really not the extreme case for rebellion he would make it out to be for sake of his ulterior motive, to use his official position to push his version of religion. If his example is imitated by judges throughout the land, no doubt in that extremity tyranny will have to be overthrown yet again because there will be no independent judiciary to protect the people from the born-again right-wing authoritarian government presently working overtime to destroy the very foundation of our liberties while taking god's name in vain.
XYX
Note:
The stone in this case is itself irrelevant and so is the judge's violation of the first four of the ten commandments inscribed thereon. Humans have been setting up stone festishes since the dawn of history. That might be objectionable to iconoclasts and is demonstrative of primitive ignorance but it is not illegal unless prohibited by law. And it was prohibited by federal and state judicial decrees in this case. This particular judge's disobedience and contempt for the rule of law is relevant, and that is the fundamental issue here.
Some of us may have no objection to the judge's fetish or anyone else's idolatrous stone-and-word-worship on private property. We may enjoy it for its aesthetic value, and, our taste being what it is, this monument to the Hebrew god pleases us.
In any event, every Alabamian knows what is going on. The judge deliberately pushed the shrine, which represents his view of religion, into the public courthouse because he wanted to make a scene. Many of them appreciate his aggressive stance, especially those who resent having their traditional symbols torn down and removed from public places. Furthermore, everyone who is literate and takes the time to do their research knows that the judge used (or abused) the Ten Commandments to get elected to the position where he now has shown contempt for the rule of law. Otherwise, it would have gone unnoticed. We may thank him for that, and thank as well those who brought legal objections to it, because the controversy exposes ignorance and bigotry in office.
The Ten Commandments and other laws both religious and secular should be posted in suitable places so they can be discussed, not worshipped. Just posting them and revering them is meaningless. Judges and priests and kings and presidents who swear by them are notorious for violating them. That is why they are regularly crushed by the very deities they worship.
Comments
Post a Comment