Lines of Separation

The separation of church and state is one the greatest innovations of governance put into practice today. By simply placing the two as distinct entities independent of each other, and setting the state's power as the prevailing determinant for the majority, one of the most potentially dangerous and complex dilemmas is resolved. This brilliant idea to elucidate a solution to that impasse has been one the greatest pillars of American governance for over 225 years. To preserve the necessary freedoms given by the First Amendment, the separation of church and state must remain unequivocally intact. Former justice Roy Moore's actions to the contrary are not justified.

The impartiality of the American justice system has been upheld since its inception. It is on the basis of that fairness that many of our most important laws are accepted. The right to worship as one sees fit is protected by one of those laws, and it is placed in grave danger when that necessary separation of church and state is blurred. Though Moore's intentions to elevate said law on the foundation of a higher power may have been good, his actions only, in actuality, weaken that law by obscuring those essential boundaries. The Alabama State Constitution provides a key insight into the behavior of justices.

The Judges of the several Courts in this State shall hold their offices during good behavior; and, for wilful neglect of duty, or other reasonable cause, which shall not be sufficient ground for impeachment, the Governor shall remove any of them, on the address of two thirds of each House of the General Assembly; provided, however, that the cause or causes for which such removal shall be required... (Ala. Ste Cons., art V., sec 13)

He is clearly and willfully neglecting his duty as a justice to preserve his state constitution and the rights granted therein. If a judge cannot keep his personal religious beliefs from coloring his interpretation of the law, then that judge cannot remain in a position of influence over judicial proceedings. In the case of the Alabama Supreme Court House, Moore could not, and was rightfully removed.

To be fair, the laws of men are not as clear cut as one might hope them to be. The majority of people would not deny that they have searched for a higher causality to the processes of life. From simply asking, 'why,' to writing well informed dissertations on the intricacies of our existence, many have contemplated life on earth. For over one third the population of the planet, this search has led to God. In return for the toil and journey, He has given a set of rules to live by. For the devout Christian, Jew, or Muslim, these guidelines are absolute. One tenet of the Christian faith, for example, is the idea of fellowship - the need to spread the faith. This idea is also expressed in the concepts of ecumenism in the Catholic dogma. According to the documents of Vatican II, this is necessary and ongoing. This is expressed as such, "...to that continual reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she is an institution of men here on earth." (Flannery 459). In some interpretations, to fail in this endeavor is unforgivable. Though he is not Catholic per se, this may help explain Moore's actions in that Alabama court house. By using his position of influence, he attempted to set secular law on the shoulders of divine law. While a commendable action to some, it was in fact a poor decision. Its implications could have been very far reaching and could have set a dangerous precedent for future interactions between church and state. Yes, to purport clarity and divine wisdom for our earthly laws is a wonderful ideal. But something about the road to hell and good intentions comes to mind. In order to protect all faiths or the lack thereof, one cannot distort the line of separation as blatantly as Moore did.

The deterioration of our judicial system by combining church and state or setting the church's authority as the prevailing determinant will lead inevitably to a seriously flawed theocracy. One can see the consequences of such government in the Middle East. The latest findings by the United Nations place that region as the least free on earth. To any religious person, such a way of doing things may seem ideal. To have clear purpose in life and absolute law through such a fantastic epiphany would indeed be equitable if it could be. But in fact there are simply too many people with too many interpretations of too many religions for it to work. Looking again to the Middle East, one sees this point illustrated by the ongoing tension of the Sunni and Shia interpretations of Islam. If one group cannot come to a consensus within their own commonly shared religious identity, how on earth could humanity at large? And that is to say nothing of the friction between Catholic and Protestant. Radical extremes, no matter how good or just, are the antithesis of consensus. Ideas held in the concrete ends of a spectrum can never find their way to the middle. Holding on to those ends defines them. The two simply cannot coexist. That is why letting the two ends stay apart is the only viable solution. By attempting to force them together, one can only weaken both as Moore almost did.

Looking closer at Moore's argument for his statue, that he was answering to a higher power, one sees another failure in logic. Being a judge, Moore would have adequate knowledge of our judicial system. Included in that knowledge is the process of appeal. He did not even avail himself of the judicial system that he is claiming to uphold and strengthen before resorting to the necessity of a higher power. Remarks by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in their final decision on the matter put this clearly:

The rule of law does require that every person obey judicial orders when all available means of appealing them have been exhausted. The chief justice of a sate supreme court, of all people, should be expected to abide by that principle.

To many Christians, there is a distinct chain of command that goes as far back as the religion itself. (Hunt et al 222 - 231) It goes as follows: man, clergy, secular rulers, God. One can also see this in the Gospel of St. Peter who pronounced the need to respect the ruling class. After all, anarchy is not conducive to Christian ideals, the potential for killing and looting and the like. "Grant Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's." is another famous Biblical passage (Acts 25). Moore seems to be unaware of the strength and fundamental roots of his religion. By turning a blind eye to those ancient foundations, he only weakened his cause before he even began.

An argument that will surely come up in this complicated debate is the idea that the United States and her Constitution are founded on Christianity. This is a misnomer. Acting in such a way as could be considered guided by the principles of our illustrious judicial system: objectivity and open and fair mindedness, one can look at history through such a lens. Upon closer examination of the history books, one sees that America was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, the philosophical movement in Europe during the 18^th century. It had a lot of ideas that were quite Greek. In fact that is why our buildings and centers of government and economy look the way they do. And from these seats of power came such ideals as freedom and liberty. Though many of these tenants share common ground with Christianity, it is not a complete endorsement of that religion. While the thread of Christian influence is recognizable, it is not overriding. Yes, the Congress opens with a prayer, and we trust God with our money and place him above our nation in our pledge toward it, but that is all. And perhaps that is enough. One can rest assured that God understands that separating His church or any church with the affairs of any state is necessary to protecting that church and that state.

Faced with the enormous political pressure of a religious right clamoring for more integration of church in the business of state, and their own beliefs, those who removed Moore and his statue did the right thing. By rectifying the mistakes of one man, they preserved a crucial right for us all. The simplest truths are often the most profound. In this case, the simple truth is that the system worked. And, God willing, it will far into the future.

Works Cited

Hunt, Lynn et al. The Making of the West. Peoples and Cultures. Volume 1: to 1740.
Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2003.

Holy Bible: Revised Standard Edition. New York: Nelson, Thomas 1953

McGrew, Jannell. "Moore Appeals Removal." Montgomery Advertiser 27 March 2004

State of Alabama. State Constitution. Article V, Section 13

United States. Eleventh District Court of Appeals. Kahn, Thomas K. Clerk. D. C. Docket Nos. 01-01268-CV-T-N 01-01269-CV-T-N. Page 49 July 2003 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ZHpdnkuESqMJ:www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216708.pdf+glassroth+v.+moore&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8