Dear Editor,
I read with interest the two viewpoints about Judge Moore and his Ten Commandments monument.
I think that we are all so sidetracked by feelings about the Ten Commandments and religion, that we have overlooked a couple of considerations.
First, Judge Moore erected a very large and very ugly (irrelevant, but true) statue on property that does not belong to him. His religious freedom is not being violated.
His religious freedom allows him to erect the monument on his own property, but not someone else’s, including the state’s. I wonder why he didn’t put it in his own front yard?
Second, he violated a court order. This is scary coming from a judge. Did he not take an oath (before God?) to uphold the law?
Does he not require adherence to his decisions? How does he punish people who violate his rulings?
The man should resign if his personal feelings make it impossible for him to live up to his oath. Otherwise, he has placed himself in the position of breaking his word given in a solemn oath.
Does anyone of us want a ruling on our cases from a judge that ignores the law and makes a decision based on his own feelings?
Judge Moore has tried to make this a religious issue, but this case is really about our property rights and judicial behavior. What the monument is does not change that.
Anne Koehler

Author