Related articles and links |  1 of 2

It's not about history. It's not about religion. It's about the first principle of America's now 228-year experiment in ordered liberty—the acknowledgement of God.

When Roy Moore placed his granite monument in the Alabama state courthouse, his intention was not, as Ted Haggard suggests ("Decalogue Debacle," April CT), to offer the nation a lesson in "religion's—and specifically, Judeo-Christian religions'—contributions to our history."

Nor was Moore endorsing a religion—as alleged by the ACLU and now Haggard in his attempt to draw lessons from the events in Montgomery. Moore's point, made clear from the start, was to acknowledge God and his sovereignty. Moore said so when he unveiled the monument. The trial judge said so in open court, and former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor said so during the trial to remove Moore from office.

Just minutes before the red draping was pulled from the polished granite cube bearing the Ten Commandments, Moore made his purpose clear. "May this day," he said on August 1, 2001, "mark the beginning of the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and a return to the knowledge of God in our land."

U.S. District Court Judge Myron H. Thompson said on the last day of Moore's 2002 trial, "I think I'll start my opinion, 'The issue here is: Can the state acknowledge God?'"

And then-Attorney General Pryor also addressed the heart of the matter. He asked Moore at trial whether, "If you resume your duties as chief justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God …"

The issue raised by Roy Moore is not how best to memorialize America's religious past but whether we may still do as the Founders did in 1776, when they grounded the case for liberty in theology. The Declaration of Independence rests the claim to independence on "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The Declaration rejects the tyranny of man (King George III) and acknowledges the sovereignty of God. "We have this day," Sam Adams said, "restored the Sovereign to whom alone all men ought to be obedient."

Moore installed his 2.5-ton challenge to prevailing First Amendment orthodoxy in order to join a battle to retain the only firm basis for freedom. Our nation will either recur to its first principle and restore the foundation on which it came into existence, or we will acquiesce to secular supremacy. We may not both abandon the foundation and expect the edifice to remain firm.

In another argument, Haggard writes that Moore favored one religion over another by permitting Coral Ridge Ministries alone to film the installation of the monument. Two points. First, the fact that Coral Ridge Ministries is a Christian broadcasting organization (not a "church" as Haggard incorrectly states) does not, we hope, disqualify us from covering news events. Second, public officials have the right to provide news to whomever they wish by providing opportunities for exclusive coverage. Government officials often turn to their favorite journalists to get their message out. It may be that Moore, eager to speak to a Christian audience, chose a Christian broadcaster. That makes good sense and is not a violation of the First Amendment, but rather free exercise.

It was also an exercise of our First Amendment freedom to collect funds nationwide for the legal defense of Roy Moore—something Haggard also takes issue with in an astonishing bow to the strict separationism espoused by the ACLU. Haggard says Moore "compounded this error [favoring one religion over another] and abused his office when he permitted the same church to prominently provide funds for his legal defense."

next page... |  1 of 2

July 2004, Vol. 48, No. 7