If the great English author Charles Dickens were writing A Tale of Two Cities today, he might include in his first paragraph of contradictory descriptions this one: “It was the age of apathy; it was the age of overreaction.” A great segment of society seems not to care about anything–widespread political corruption, moral “degeneresy,” liberal courts, or social injustices. On the other hand there are the Republic of Texas zealots and the ACLU, always spoiling for a fight.
One example of overreaction came as a result of an Alabama judge’s insistence on having the ten commandments posted in his courtroom. Gregory D. Harper of Marshall took fanatic exception to the judge’s action. While the average person has been supportive of the judge (except for about 50 “clergymen” who are opposing him, according to a Paul Harvey broadcast of May 15th), Mr. Harper wrote the following to The Dallas Morning News, who published it on May 11th.
Get ready, Americans! Your right to a fair, unbiased trial is being assaulted. The honorable Judge Roy Moore of Alabama has decided to present his belief in God by displaying a plaque of the Ten Commandments and praying in his courtroom.
Judge Moore has confused the wooden bench on which he exalts himself with a pulpit. In doing so, he has disposed of one of the most fundamental tenets of the American Constitution–the separation of church and state.
When you enter his courtroom, you do not enter a sanctuary where your future is objectively determined by the facts of the case, but a place where any non-Christian faces potential religious persecution. The day that one person’s religious beliefs are held in higher regard than another’s is the day that we spit on every soldier’s grave who has fought against religious persecution. The battle against Hitler during World War II was a battle against a person of power forcing a type of religion on the people of Europe and persecuting anyone who thought differently.
It is conceivable that Judge Moore’s decisions concerning punishment could be based on a person’s religious beliefs. A Baptist gets five years, a Muslim 10 years, and a Satanist life in prison, all for the same crime. The Alabama governor has threatened to use the National Guard against anyone who wishes to remove the plaque, and Congress joined hands with ultraconservative zealots bent on controlling our lives by passing a resolution backing the judge’s right to display the Ten Commandments. I firmly believe that every person has a right to whatever religious beliefs they choose and the right to express them, as long as that expression does not deter the judicial process.
As a Christian, I am embarrassed by the actions of Judge Moore and I pray for anyone who enters his courtroom.
Fortunately for this letter’s author, sheer idiocy is not a punishable crime either in Alabama or Texas. He first of all asserts that because one judge has the ten commandments posted in his courtroom our entire system of justice is shot. Such is not merely an unwarranted leap; it’s like jumping out of an airplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute. And this opening charge is just the beginning of a wild and bumpy ride.
It was once the common practice to have witnesses put one hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth, so help them God (and some judges still do). By Mr. Harper’s “logic” no one in America probably ever received a fair trial. After all, if posting the ten commandments would cause a judge to be biased, just think of the massive destruction that the presence of the entire Bible (which contains the ten commandments and much more) in a court room might wreak. And how unfair is the phrase, so help you God, to Muslims since there is no mention of Allah?
In the second paragraph of the letter, the writer informs us that Judge Moore exalts himself. Most judges are appointed or elected; how is it that they exalt themselves? By acknowledging a higher power, he appears to be exalting God, not himself. But the real error in this paragraph is the statement that the separation of church and state is in the Constitution. If so, where? The first amendment prohibits the establishment of religion (a state-sponsored religion)–or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This nation’s founders repeatedly acknowledged God and Biblical principles. The judge’s actions do not establish any religion–not even Judaism. He is not violating the Constitution.
Harper makes another illogical “leap” when he assumes that because the ten commandments are posted, the judge can no longer be objective. If he were so inclined to be biased, would their presence on the wall really matter? Then he asserts that a plaque in a courtroom desecrates the graves of our soldiers. Which war, exactly was fought for religious freedom? The Boston Tea Party was about taxation, not worship. Most wars have been about political and economic freedom. And exactly what type of religion was Adolph Hitler pushing? He put to death any “Christians” who opposed him. Casting Hitler in the role of a televangelist is absurdity run amuck.
It is asserted that this judge could sentence people variously for the same crimes. Such would certainly be a bit obvious to all in the community. If any harshness did exist, it would more likely be directed at “Christians,” who know better than to violate the law. “To whom much is given, much is required.” In case Mr. Harper doesn’t know it, we already have inequities in our justice system. A mother is put in jail for slapping her child (child abuse) while a celebrity with high-priced attorneys is acquitted of murder.
A person who believes in Biblical principles should make the best kind of judge, since he would refuse bribes (unlike the judges in Chicago exposed in Operation Graylord). A judge should be very conscientious when he considers: “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord” (Pr. 17:15). A judge following the principles of the Bible will not be a respecter of persons, but will render impartial judgment.
If the letter-writer thinks that Congress is now full of ultraconservative zealots (who were elected to office by the majority of people who happen to agree with them on this issue), what must he think of our early elected officials who issued this statement in 1782: “The Congress of the United States approves and recommends to the people, the Holy Bible. . .for use in schools”? [This information is in the excellent book, Five Lies of the Century by David T. Moore. page 21.]
If Harper is a Christian, he is an embarrassment to the Lord, whose name he claims. His letter is full of heat but no light. He reminds me of the person who responded emotionally (rather than logically) to the statement I made in my weekly newspaper column about the Jews killing Christ. He accused me of being anti-Semitic and responsible for the ill treatment of the Jews. This was an unwarranted overreaction by someone obviously Jewish, who leaped to the conclusion that I was saying Jews should still be punished today for what their ancestors did (of which there was not even a hint).
Other Overreactions
Tragically, this spirit of overreaction seems to be taking hold of more and more preachers in the church. “Did you hear what brother X said?” “No, why he can’t get away with that.” Granted that there are times when we all must stand up and protest grave errors, such as Andre Resner’s “Christmas at Matthew’s House,” Carroll Osborne’s The Peaceable Kingdom, the multitude of errors being propagated at the Nashville Jubilee, etc.
But we must properly discern what is a matter of faith and doctrine from what is an unfortunate choice of words. There is a difference between an idea poorly expressed and a doctrine that someone is actively propagating. Everything cannot be treated as a life-threatening issue which must be nailed down this very second, in the absence of a spirit of love, mutual respect, tolerance, and patience.
Of course, truth is of paramount importance, but even Jesus did not begin His public ministry by saying, “I’m the Son of God. If you don’t believe that, you’re not a faithful Jew, and we’re withdrawing fellowship from you.” Jesus gave people time and evidence to come to the proper conclusion concerning Himself.
On some newer issues (not to mention those resurfacing after a period of dormancy, if the last fifty years is any indication), some brethren need more time than others to think things through as they perfect their knowledge.
Instead of sending off missiles (er, missives) to a brother with whom we disagree, why not exercise love, forbearance, and patience until in a spirit of love the matter can be properly resolved?
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “OVERREACTION (5/25/97).”