Would anyone care to explain why the judge lost his case?
A few points:
1. To blame the "feds" is disingenuous; the suit was filed by private parties; the federal court simply made the ruling.
2. The judge is not the best poster boy for the cause; his candidacy was based on his fame as the "Ten Commandments Judge" and little else, apparently.
3. The court found, rightly or wrongly, that the monument is religious, not secular.
While the secular aspect of the Ten Commandments can be emphasized, this monument, however, leaves no room for ambiguity about its religious appearance. Its sloping top and the religious air of the tablets unequivocally call to mind an open Bible resting on a podium. While the quotations on the monument's sides are non-Biblical, they still speak solely to non-secular matters, that is, to the importance of religion and the sovereignty of God in our society; these non-Biblical quotations are physically below and not on the same plane with the Biblical one. Further, there is the ineffable but still overwhelming sacred aura of the monument.
As the court observed earlier, it was not surprising to learn that visitors and court employees found the monument to be an appropriate, and even compelling, place for prayer. The only way to miss the religious or non-secular appearance of the monument would be to walk through the Alabama State Judicial Building with one's eyes closed.
4. The court examined other judicial and public displays of the Ten Commandments, and found most of them unobjectionable.
Finally, the mural in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court courtroom is one of many similar murals in that room, including murals featuring William Blackstone and the Code of Justinian.
5. Alas, the court finds another agenda.
While not argued by the plaintiffs, the court is concerned that Chief Justice Moore's involvement with Coral Ridge Ministries, a Christian media outlet, violates the third, entanglement prong of the Lemon test. Aside from its being the only media outlet to record the night-time placement of the monument in the Alabama State Judicial Building, Coral Ridge has used the Chief Justice's name and his installation of the Ten Commandments monument to raise funds for not only his defense but also its own evangelical purposes.
6. By it's nature, Moore's decision had the force of law.
The Chief Justice placed the monument in the Judicial Building Rotunda under his authority as administrative head of Alabama's judicial system. ... His placement of the monument therefore has the force of law. The Chief Justice is the only person with the authority to place the monument or remove it, authority given to him by the laws of Alabama. To say that his actions in placing the monument in the Alabama Judicial Building does not constitute a "law" obfuscates the truth of the situation: the monument was placed in the Judicial Building by a state official, acting in his official state capacity, under powers granted to him by state law.
7. An interesting aside from the court, which a Baptist could (and did, in the person of John Leland) consider appropriate:
Indeed, this same history taught that when government interfered with religion, religion (and, in particular, Christianity)suffered. This is evidenced by the many instances in which people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs, well-known to anyone who has studied American History.
Thus, the First Amendment gave "preferred treatment" to religion, and, in particular, to Christianity, by assuring that there would be no governmental interference with, including even "endorsement" of, it. In other words, as
indeed history has shown, Christianity flourishes best when it is left alone by government. So, it could be argued that, because this country began as a Christian nation, the First Amendment's ban on government interference with religion in general has actually encouraged the flourishing of not just religion but Christianity in particular.
As I said, the court may indeed be wrong in its analysis — but it is a far cry from "bashing" Christianity.
8. The court's decision may indeed be flawed; perhaps the Supreme Court will find it so. But this case is not the best one for proponents of posting the Ten Commandments, and the court was careful to explain that not all such exhibits are in violation of the constitution.
But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law. Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible.
As I said, the decision may be wrong, but it hardly constitutes "bashing" Christianity.
The decision is available here, for those who would like to read it:
GLASSROTH VS. MOORE
