Roy Moore's Beliefs

Famous as Alabama's "Ten Commandments Judge," Roy Moore is now the official Republican candidate for the United States Senate.  As is well known, Moore was twice elected Chief Justice of Alabama, and twice removed from office for refusing to comply with federal court orders.  The first time, in 2003, Moore defied a federal court order to remove a granite Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court building grounds.  The second time, in 2016, he refused to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.  (Yes, I know that both cases were procedurally very complicated, but the main point is that Moore was removed as Chief Justice.)

There was an earlier aspect of Moore's judicial tenure, however, that may provide even more insight into his thinking. In 1992-2000, as a Circuit Court judge in Etowah County, Moore made a practice of leading prayers at the opening of every court session.  Here is what I wrote about it at the time:

CHICAGO TRIBUNE

July 6, 2000 

 

ALABAMA JUDGE IS DETERMINED TO POST 10 COMMANDMENTS

 

Steven Lubet. Steven Lubet is a law professor at Northwestern University.

 

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 unAmerican. Even when the judge believes he knows God's will. And even, we can still hope, in the Supreme Court of Alabama.

Comments

[anon]

Of course, the prayer to the deity that opens the SCOTUS is different: that prayer is secular, correct? We all know about the religious icons in the SCOTUS, etc. This is an old debate.

I would tend to agree that inviting an extended prayer and asking folks to leave a courtroom if they don't agree likely violates the sense of impartiality to which a court must adhere. It might make sense to mention that, rather than just stringing together a bunch of emotional appeals based on irrelevancies.

For example, the way that Moore explained his electoral victory is irrelevant, or, are you asserting that the public needs to examine the statements of every individual in public office, and scrub any one who refers to religion? That would be sweet, right Steve?

As to whether this country was "founded on religious beliefs" there is a bona fide argument to be had and you imply otherwise. If you study the history of the English settlements that began as colonies and then states that unified to form this nation, you'll start to get a clue. YOu might want to start with the proceedings and declarations of those political entities.

Of course, we've come a long way since then and atheism seems to be the prevailing religion in legal academia, to be sure. I don't claim anything about Lubet's beliefs and his beliefs are personal and should be irrelevant to this discussion imho. I would point out, however, that the many atheists in legal academia, should, in my view, be as careful as any other religious zealots and bigots to make particularly sure that they do not paint others with too broad a brush.

[Dave Garrow]

I just hope EVERYONE has today made a contribution to Doug Jones For U. S. Senate!

[PaulB]

Today's homework assignment, students, is to compare and contrast the election to Congress , should it happen, of an Alabama state supreme court justice who was removed from office for misconduct and the election of Alcee Hastings of Florida, who previously had been impeached and removed from the federal judiciary.

In both cases the republic will survive.

[[M][a][c][K]]

What horrifies me is that this guy coukd get elected in Alabama. Must remember it next time someone suggests building a plant there - are you sure you’d be welcome? All of you?

[[M][a][c][K]]

PaulB - the thing with a ‘death of a thousand cuts’ is that no individual cut is fatal, but the cumulative impact of them is.

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

Is it so bad what these Fundamentalists and Evangelicals want? So, they want prayer in schools, religious stuff in public buildings and acknowledgment that we are a Nation under God. At least these religious zealots don't kill innocents, blow up airliners, destroy cultures or behead people online. They aren't so bad, all things considered. The only thing is his ant-LGBT rhetoric that really hurts.