Attorney General Bill Pryor files a motion for the Alabama Supreme Court to re-hear a controversial state-church separation case. Should prayer and display of religious symbols be permitted in courtrooms and other government venues?

axpayers in Alabama will continue to pick up the tab for legal fees in a controversial case involving a county judge who posts a copy of the Ten Commandments on his courtroom wall, and opens judicial proceedings with a prayer.

    Last January, the state's Supreme Court dismissed Alabama's case which was seen by legal observers as an effort to obtain a favorable court ruling supporting Etowah County Judge Roy Moore. The original suit had been filed by the state; but justices backed-off dealing with the constitutional issues. That action meant that while Moore may continue the prayer and decalogue display, any legal challenges against him must, essentially, start over or be filed in a different jurisdiction.

    Attorney General Bill Pryor filed a new motion last week which seeks a rehearing on the state's case. Justices may be reluctant to do so, however; in the official decision, Justice Ralph Cook who authored the ruling, cautioned that the court "will not, however, allow the judiciary of this state to become a political foil, or a sounding board for topics of contemporary interest."

    But the January decision produced mixed legal results for all sides in the case. Pryor and Alabama Governor Fob James -- a fundamentalist Christian and supporter of Judge Moore -- had hoped for a favorable decision to legitimize prayer and other religious activity in the courtroom. The Supreme Court in a related decision dismissed an suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Alabama Freethought Society that challenged the prayer and decalogue display as an unconstitutional violation of state-church separation. Those groups had sued State Chief Justice Perry Hooper, arguing that as Alabama's ranking jurist, he had the authority to end Moore's questionable courtroom activities. The high court disagreed, saying that while the Chief Justice is the administrative head of the court system, he lacked specific authority in the Moore case.

   Justices were reluctant to deal with any substantive aspect of either appeal, a fact reflected in the fact that the January ruling was made by five members of the nine-person court, with four abstentions. State media has noted that some of the Justices are up for reelection to their posts.

    Carol Faulkenberry, a member of the Alabama Freethought Society, informed aanews that she is taking a "wait and see" attitude about this issue. "There's always the possibility that the state Supreme Court will decide to hear the case and rule against Moore and James."

[text only]