Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is continuing to refuse to remove the Ten Commandments monument he set up in front of the Alabama state judicial building. What strikes me as particularly hard to believe, however, is the alleged cost of his refusal.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of Montgomery, who ruled the monument violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion, had said fines of about $5,000 a day would have been imposed against the state if the monument were not removed.According to the State of Alabama State Government Finances website, the state's total general fund revenue for FY 2001-2002 was only $1,189,000,000. There's no way they spent $125 million on this lawsuit over the past 4 years.Moore pledged to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Thompson and said the promised fines would add to the approximate $125 million the state has already spent defending the monument's place. The state is spending $25,000 a day of taxpayers' money on the case, Moore said.
I emailed the link to Eugene, and he thinks the amount is pretty unrealistic as well. And he links back to me -- thanks! The Volokh Conspiracy was my blogging inspiration.
Update:
Eugene and his readers have proven that the FoxNews story is incorrect, and he cites this episode as an example of how good blogs are at fact-checking.
Update 2:
For my thoughts on more recent developments, see Christians Waste Time, Goodwill, and Neglect True Mission.
I'd be willing to bet it's $1.25 million. Or at worst, $12.5 million, but I still doubt that this particular lawsuit could cost even THAT much. Most likely a typo or bad information.
Additionally, if it's been costing $25,000 a day, it would have cost only $36.5 million over four years. There's definitely some bad data in that article. I looked through the first 15 or so links on Google News, and only one of them mentioned the $125 million figure -- WorldNetDaily.com. Never heard of it before. Oddly fishy.
As far as the issue itself... the only real argument I've seen for keeping the monument there is that "our legal system is founded on the Ten Commandments!" Unfortunately, even if that is true (it's not), no such exception is made in the First Amendment for religious documents, even if they *are* the basis of our legal system...
But there's also no real plausible argument that any religion is being established, or that anyone's right to freely exercise their religion is being obstructed.
Plus, the Supreme Court has the Ten Commandments hanging up in their courtroom.
The Ten Commandments are not posted in the Supreme Court:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8a.htm
Additionally, there are quotes inscribed on the monument that attempt to establish God as the source for our law and government.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14557
I know that seeing something like that makes me feel as if I'm being told, by the government, that the government is based on religion and that I should believe in God. That's not an establishment?
I suppose that being built into the architecture is somewat different than being in the building, per se.
I can't really account for how things make you feel. You don't have a right to have anyone make you feel any particular way.
Establishment of religion would take a lot more than simply making you feel uneasy.
No, you're right, I have no explicit right to have my feelings considered by others. But the explicit intent of the monument establishes religion -- that God exists and we are indebted to him -- from a position of governmental authority.
The fact that I feel the way I do is merely an indicator to me that something's wrong. From there I used reason to conclude that something's wrong.
Well, I don't think that the monument serves to establish a religion, so I guess that's where we disagree.
Could you apply some logic as to why you don't think it establishes religion? I.e. why a series of quotations inscribed on it that refer to God as the source of our system of law, does not imply that the government thinks we should agree?
Because it places no obligation on you whatsoever, and does not infringe on your exercise of your beliefs.
Now, if you want to argue over whether or not it's a wise expenditure of your tax dollars, that's fine [if you were an Alabamian]. I don't necessarily have a position on that; I don't know how important it is for our public buildings to be impressively designed, &c.
I can see from the pictures of the monument inscriptions that it isn't even the ten commandments that are there, just some abbreviated paraphrase, with the majority left out. So, those who are protesting and think they are defending "THE" Ten Commandments are really just defending the idea of them, and don't know what they really say at all. Study the originals and see how people have tried to change them over the years. WE, human beings, change the Word of GOD ?????!!!!!!!!! Judge Moore doesn't do any favors I can see if he isn't accurate with what HE says stands for. I am sure he means well, he doesn't look close enough. Just a thought ........
Our country's laws were founded on the ten commandments.
I DO NOT think it is right for a judge, court, or anyone else to be able to tell us who we CAN or CAN NOT believe in.
Or how we think about our GOD.
I think the monument should stay and I support Judge Moore for what he is trying to do.
But the bible says we will be prosecuted for standing up for Jesus Christ.
Yes I back Judge Moore one hundred percent. LEAVE IT THERE.WHT NOT? WE NEED TO TELL PEOPLE ABOUT THE TEN COMMANANDENTS, SO LET THEM BE SEEN AND READ THEM.
YHANK GOD FOR PEOPLE WHO STAND UP FOR WHT THEY BELIEVE.
LOIS BEDGOOD
LET IT STAND.