Let me clear up a few things first. I am not opposed to Ten Commandment displays at schools, courthouses and other public buildings. When the historic nature of it as the cornerstone of Anglo-Saxon common law is considered and the fact that multiple religions use it, it's posting seems to meet First Amendment standards, neither establishing religion (is it establishing Christianity? Judaism? Mormonism? All of the above?) nor inhibiting the free exercise thereof (it's presence doesn't keep people from practicing a religion with non-Judaic roots). Yes, you could also make the case since it isn't Congress that doing the deed, it would steer clear of the text of the First Amendment.
However, current case law doesn't agree with me. State-sponsored religious displays pass Supreme Court muster only when placed in a broader historical or cultural context. A stamp of Madonna and Child can count if it's part of a great art series. A Christmas crèche is OK if it has Santa and Christmas trees in the mix. The Ten Commandments is OK if it's part of a lot of other historic documents, like Polk County's new Foundation Rock.
Does that make sense? Not much.
Can we protest that the Supreme Court has their collective head up their kiester? Yes.
Will that change their opinion? No.
I am not a big fan of civil disobedience. I had a certain amount of respect for Operation Rescue and other groups, who would use (usually) peaceful blockades in order to slow down the abortion factories. Mark Butterworth made this comment here earlier in the day
It is every man's duty to defy illegal, immoral, and evil orders, instructions, or commands. See Nuremburg Trials.In the case of abortion, you could make a solid case to justify civil disobedience; the prison time and fines would be worth saving a few lives, assuming that the protests cause at least one woman to change her mind and keep her child. However, I'm not sure if it didn't harden the hearts of the abortionists and their allies more than it loosed some others.
However, what we had cooking in Montgomery wasn't Dachau or Auschwitz, it was a order to remove a statue. No one was killed or tortured. The order wasn't illegal, at least by the current law of the United States of America. It was of questionable morality- does God want a statue with His words on it to be treated with the near-idolatrousness of the Moore Posse or is He happier with it in place? Calling it evil is a bit overkill, but if you think it's immoral, the decision would be evil in the sense that it's not good.
The problem I have with Moore and his backers is that their protests were counter-productive. It hasn't changed public opinion, cost the state money and gave a black eye to Christians, as Moore seemed to worship a big chunk of stone rather than the God who inspired the words on it. I get an almost pharisaical feel out of that crowd, seemingly wanting to be seen to be making a public statement rather than living out that faith.
How many people have come away from Commandmentgate thinking "Gee, Judge Moore really loves God. I need to draw closer to Jesus"? How many have come away thinking "That judge doesn't know when to quit. If worshiping God that much makes you that thick-headed, I don't want to be that devout"? Unfortunately, I think more the latter than the former.
Civil disobedience is only useful if you change minds in the process. One of the tactics of the civil rights movement was to show the injustice of segregation as they were dragged away from lunch counters and busses; whites were shamed into rethinking Jim Crow. I don't think too many people were shamed into rethinking church-state boundaries in the direction of more leeway to post religious material. All the protest and defiance did was to cost him his job and give Alabama a black eye.
In part two, I'll consider how far to take the Nuremberg imperative.
Comments