Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama is currently in the news for instructing the state's probate judges that they do not need to adhere to a federal court ruling that invalidated Alabama's ban on gay marriage. Before that, in 2003, he was removed from office when he refused to obey a federal court order to remove from court grounds a 5000 pound granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments. (After running unsuccessfully for governor, he was again elected chief justice in 2012.)
But those are not the only controversies involving Moore. Even as a trial judge in Etowah County in the 1990s, he showed remarkable callousness toward the rights of minorities. Here is an oped I published in the Chicago Tribune in 2000, during Moore's first campaign for the Alabama Supreme Court. It addresses his insistence on leading Christian prayers in his courtroom:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-07-06/news/0007060197_1_judge-moore-courtroom-prayers
Judge Roy Moore of Etowah County, Ala., became famous when he posted a hand-carved plaque of the 10 Commandments on his courtroom wall and refused to take it down. Now Judge Moore is about to become more famous, having won the Republican nomination for chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. If he wins the general election in November, he has promised to take his plaque with him to the Supreme Court, though he has not yet decided whether to place it in his chambers or in the courtroom.
Judge Moore clearly revels in the controversy. For the past three years he has traveled the country promoting his views on law, religion and politics. He often concludes his speeches with a bit of poetry, explaining his world view in a few short lines: "While truth and law were founded upon the God of all creation, man through law now denies him and calls it separation."
Moore campaigned for chief justice on a forthright platform of "Christian principles," regularly invoking his defense of the 10 Commandments. He obviously struck a chord with Alabama voters, as he routed three equally conservative opponents in the Republican primary by vowing to restore "the freedom to worship God publicly ... in the manner we choose."
It would be wrong to regard Moore's crusade as simply a symbolic movement to display the 10 Commandments. It goes far deeper than that and has much more significant implications for freedom of religion in the United States.
In addition to his Decalogue display, Moore also follows a practice of initiating organized prayer in his courtroom. As his campaign Web page puts it, he invites "preachers or ministers to offer a prayer during jury organizational sessions." Calling the prayers "voluntary," Moore announces that anyone who objects is free to leave the courtroom. But then the prayers go forward, with the judge on the bench and the potential jurors filling the seats. Obviously, these devotions are voluntary in name only.
Imagine that you are a member of one of Alabama's many religious minorities--Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness or another. Now suppose that you have entered Judge Moore's courtroom with your liberty or property at stake. How much freedom will you feel to object when a Protestant minister begins his invocation? In the presence of the jurors who will soon decide your fate, how much resolve would it take to stand up and walk out of the courtroom in full view of the prayerful majority?
The very best that can be said of Judge Moore's prayers is that they are voluntary for some people and clearly coercive for others.
There is no way to know how many citizens have been intimidated into silent participation in Moore's religious observances, for fear of making the wrong impression on the courtroom congregation. And while Moore insists that he can preside impartially over the cases of those who dissent, even he cannot guarantee that every juror will be equally dispassionate.
So go ahead, walk out during the organized prayers. Then come back in to have your case heard. Of course, you might have second thoughts if you heard Judge Moore's comments while campaigning in Alabama: "You have the right to believe what you want to, but you don't have the right to believe this country was not founded on the belief in God because it's not true."
If the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment means anything, it means people must not feel constrained by the government to join in religious activities. Many judges, perhaps most, seek divine guidance for their difficult work, but they have the grace not to make a show if it, choosing to pray privately in chambers. Recognizing that they embody the secular power of the state, the overwhelming majority of judges wisely refrain from introducing religious observances in their courtrooms.
Judge Roy Moore, however, is confident that his way is the right way. "We give our first recognition to God," he said, explaining his electoral victory. "His will is something that can't be thwarted."
But people come into court expecting justice under law, not instructions as to God's will. For that we have churches, temples, synagogues and mosques.
Yet, Moore's Web page boasts that "volunteer prayer is still being led by local ministers for the favor and guidance of almighty God." And if you do not happen to pray the same way, well, you can just leave. Except, of course, that you cannot really leave if you have been ordered to appear in court.
Reasonable minds can disagree about the virtues and constitutionality of posting the 10 Commandments. But there should be no disagreement about pressuring lawyers, witnesses, jurors and litigants to participate in judge-sponsored prayers. That is just plain wrong. In fact, it is un-American. Even when the judge believes he knows God's will. And even, we can still hope, in the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Comments