c. 1997 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ The House of Representatives weighed in Wednesday (March 5) on the Alabama controversy over a judge who has refused to remove a wooden replica of the Ten Commandments from his courtroom.

In a 295-125 vote, the House passed a non-binding resolution that asserts the”public display, including display in government offices and courthouses, of the Ten Commandments should be permitted.” The”sense of Congress”resolution says the Ten Commandments”have had a significant impact on the development of the fundamental legal principles of Western civilization”and”are a declaration of fundamental principles that are the cornerstones of a fair and just society.” The resolution specifically cites the case of Alabama Judge Roy S. Moore, who has generated a national church-state controversy over the appropriate role of religion in the courtroom.

The Etowah County Circuit judge has been opening his court with prayer by a Protestant minister and has posted a hand-carved replica of the Ten Commandments behind his bench.

Claiming the prayers and the Ten Commandments display are unconstitutional, the American Civil Liberties Union has sued to eliminate them.

Last month, Montgomery Circuit Court Judge Charles Price ordered Moore to remove the Ten Commandments plaque or modify it to make it part of a larger display. However, on Feb. 19, the Alabama Supreme Court delayed implementation of the order while it considers Moore’s appeal.

The case became more controversial after Alabama Gov. Fob James, a Republican, said publicly that federal authorities would have to”run over the state troopers and the National Guard”if they tried to remove the plaque.

The House resolution was introduced Tuesday by freshman Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., who represents the congressional district where Moore’s courtroom is located.

Several opponents complained Aderholt introduced the measure with little advance warning and no committee hearings.

In remarks on the House floor Tuesday, Aderholt said he was introducing the measure out of concern that many Americans today”ignore the religious tradition upon which this nation was founded.” He emphasized the resolution would force no one to obey the Commandments.”It merely re-affirms the importance of a vital religious symbol,”he argued.

But other representatives questioned the appropriateness of Congress intervening on the subject. “This is not a matter in which we have jurisdiction,”said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., adding that while he personally believes in the Ten Commandments, he also believes courtrooms should be open to”people of all religions.” The House resolution does not mention the issue of prayers in the courtroom. On Nov. 22, Price ordered Moore to stop opening his court with prayers, but that order has also been delayed by the state supreme court, pending an appeal.

Although the resolution has no force of law, several groups expressed concern about its potential effect.

The American Jewish Congress (AJC) called the resolution”a threat to the rule of law.””This issue here is not church-state separation, nor federalism; it is whether we will have a nation ruled by law or anarchy. Rep. Aderholt has chosen anarchy,”said AJC Executive Director Phil Baum.

In a letter to members of Congress, Mark Pelavin, associate director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said he was troubled at how lawmakers were treating the Ten Commandments.”To see this sacred text used in such a political manner is inappropriate and distressing,”Pelavin said.

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, also accused Congress of using religion for political purposes. “This is absolutely the worst politicizing of religion that I’ve seen in Congress in the 25 years that I’ve been following these issues,”Lynn said in an interview Wednesday.

Lynn said he was upset precisely because the resolution has no binding effect.”This is simply a showboating vote so that opponents of it can be labeled as anti-God. I feel quite confident that the Ten Commandments are no stronger now just because Congress has given them an official blessing,”he said.

But other groups praised Congress for taking up the issue.”By passing this resolution, Congress will send the strong message that the censorship of public manifestations of traditional religious expression will not be tolerated,”said Colleen Pinyan, coordinator of the Office of Public Affairs for the Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Va.-based legal group that focuses on religious issues.

MJP END LAWTON