Judge Roy Moore
(And Other Sneaky Christians)
Joel
From: "Joel"
To: Positive Atheism
Sent: October 31, 2001
Subject: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Hi Cliff (and Gene),
I agree with you that "our side" of the argument makes mistakes when trying to counter "their side." A good example came up recently and I would like to get your thoughts on it. I'm sure you are aware of the judge (Roy Moore) in Alabama that put the stone (cement) monument of the ten commandments in the lobby of "his" courthouse. The first response from various groups was to try and get Moore to "allow" these groups to put their symbols and/or words next to the monument. American Atheists, for one, wanted their symbol placed nearby. I am of the mind that this was a mistake on the part of American Atheists and the other groups. I would have liked to have the various groups get together and demand that a copy of the bill of rights be placed next to the "Christian" monument, perhaps with the first amendment somehow highlighted. This request should have been very public so Moore's answer would have been very public. This puts Judge more in the position of A.) having to refuse to post part of the Constitution in the lobby of the courthouse or B.) allowing it but having the contradiction openly displayed to the public every day and having to answer questions about the contradiction. The people who are now suing are right to do so and should proceed with vigor, but think about the outcome if the Bill of Rights was now sitting next to the Ten Commandments in the lobby. "Our side" will prevail in the lawsuit and the Ten Commandments will be removed (I hope), but what judge is going to rule that the Bill of Rights also has to be removed from the lobby? There it would sit with the first amendment highlighted for Roy Moore to walk past every day!
Am I dreaming?
Joel
Sarasota, Florida
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Joel"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: October 31, 2001
The first response from various groups was to try and get Moore to "allow" these groups to put their symbols and/or words next to the monument.
Actually, I suspect that this was their second response, the first one being a request that he not erect his monument -- which was put up by stealth anyway, so we didn't hear much about it.
American Atheists, for one, wanted their symbol placed nearby. I am of the mind that this was a mistake on the part of American Atheists and the other groups.
I immediately spoke out against this move. In "To Symbolize That Which Is Not" (August, 2001), I said, "This is the trademark of a private group, despised by many theists and even a few atheists. Their logo has as much right to be on public property as do Moore's ancient taboos against the Evil Eye." Back then, it did not appear that this was a group-wide decision on the part of American Atheists, but a decision made locally. Nowadays that does appear to be the case.
I would have liked to have the various groups get together and demand that a copy of the bill of rights be placed next to the "Christian" monument, perhaps with the first amendment somehow highlighted.
I would not endorse this move because to juxtapose the Bill of Rights against a violation of those rights would only highlight their ineffectiveness as a protective measure. We need to make the Bill of Rights protect us against the likes of Judge Moore, not give in to his abuses of and disdain toward our Religious Liberties. I would, however, just love to see the Bill of Rights erected instead of Moore's religious display! In fact, I would just love to see the people place the Bill of Rights up anywhere a copy of the Ten Commandments has been removed! That would be quite an effective message, if you ask me: "Erected by Such-&-So Committee on This-or-That date to celebrate the removal of an unconstitutional display which made Our Fine Town appear to be in the awkward (and illegal) position of endorsing a specific religious sect."
This request should have been very public so Moore's answer would have been very public.
As I mentioned, Moore's move was quiet and very private -- a "stealth" action, according to some. Judge Roy Moore, knowing that what he was doing was wrong and knowing that even in Alabama he would go up against fierce opposition, was very sneaky about the whole thing. Moore knows, through repeated experience, that one needs to get up pretty early in the morning in order to practice this particular brand of the Christian religion.
This puts Judge more in the position of A.) having to refuse to post part of the Constitution in the lobby of the courthouse or B.) allowing it but having the contradiction openly displayed to the public every day and having to answer questions about the contradiction.
I agree that this would have been a superior-looking request than the logo of American Atheists, but it would not have served the intended purpose of the Alabama activists, which was to showcase just how wrong it is to post the trademark slogan of a private religious group on public land. Such trademark slogans include a Reader's Digest-style "Condensed Version" of the Protestant listing of the First Stone Tablets of the Hebrew Ten Commandments (Exodus 20, cf. Exodus 34) and the Protestant rendition of the "Lord's Prayer" passage from the Christian Bible.
think about the outcome if the Bill of Rights was now sitting next to the Ten Commandments in the lobby.
The Reader's Digest-style "Condensed Version" of the Protestant listing of the First Stone Tablets of the Hebrew Ten Commandments would still be there, and they would have yet another "precedent" because once again we did not properly challenge this one.
"Our side" will prevail in the lawsuit and the Ten Commandments will be removed (I hope), but what judge is going to rule that the Bill of Rights also has to be removed from the lobby?
No! Because the display would have been duly "secularized," the Reader's Digest-style "Condensed Version" of the Protestant listing of the First Stone Tablets of the Hebrew Ten Commandments would stay! Don't you get it? the Lemon Compromise, instead of making the First Amendment prevent the government from establishing religion, now prevents the government from "excessive entanglement" with religion. This means that all they gotta do is erect a fifty-foot Santa off to the side of the Baby Jesus in a park, the Baby Jesus gets to stay. That was what the "Santazilla" case was all about.
The same thing would happen if Judge Moore erected the Bill of Rights next to his Reader's Digest-style "Condensed Version" of the Protestant listing of the First Stone Tablets of the Hebrew Ten Commandments: the "whole display" would have taken on a "secularized" meaning and would not be seen, under the Lemon Compromise, as an "excessive entanglement."
There it would sit with the first amendment highlighted for Roy Moore to walk past every day!
This sounds nice, but what makes you think Judge Roy Moore would respect American law any more than he does today, simply because he must see it a few more times each day?
The problem is not that Judge Moore doesn't know the law, it's that he does not respect the law. American law, according to Judge Moore, is not the supreme law, but is a subsidiary law, useful only as long as it does not contradict the Commandments of Judge Moore's Imaginary Friend.
Am I dreaming?
No. Those who are not thinking about this problem at all, they're the ones who are dreaming. At least you show a desire to do something about it. And I only wish your ideas sounded better than what's already been tried.
The big problem is that since the Day of Atrocity, any move on our part to try to get the government to obey the law makes us appear unpatriotic. Study the McCarthy Era of the 1950s. Check, even, the newsreels of the 1940s to see what I mean: as William S. Burroughs said, "Indifference is not an option.... When the enemy's face showed up on the screen, they'd better scream loud and scream ugly!"
Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six years of service to
people with no reason to believe
From: "Van Citters"
To: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
Sent: October 31, 2001 9:24 PM
Subject: RE: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Okay, okay you don't have to yell at me. :) I'm trying to learn about this stuff so my arguments will be based on fact and therefore more effective. That's why I send you e-mails, so you will critique my thoughts and I can learn about things. Thanks for your input. I had not thought about the Lemon Compromise. I'm in the corner with my dunce cap on.
Joel
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Van Citters/All Media Marketing"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: November 01, 2001 2:05 AM
Not yelling at you! (not yet, anyway!) You're on our side, remember? We gotta hold you to higher standards than the others, don't we?
(If I were yelling at you, you'd definitely know about it!)
To learn about the hard-line Separationism that it's probably going to take to check George Bush and Judge Moore and the likes, we all need check out Gene Garman's page, as you have already done.
My only reservation is the regret that I only recently met Gene, and have been working in this field for years without his crucial perspective. After you've wallowed in that for a while, so to speak, you can liberalize all you want and you'll still be firmly within bounds!
All kidding aside, that's what this is all about! We test our current understanding by offering it up to the scrutiny of others.
Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six years of service to
people with no reason to believe
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2009 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to Positive Atheism to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.