Ten Commandments monument to stay - for now

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- A Ten Commandments monument can remain in the lobby of the Alabama Judicial Building, at least for now.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson on Monday delayed an order he issued last week requiring Chief Justice Roy Moore to remove his 5,300-pound monument by Jan. 3.

Thompson said he issued the stay -- which Moore requested -- to give a federal appeals court time to review the case. Thompson ruled last month that the monument was an unconstitutional acknowledgment of religion by the state and must be removed.

Thompson said he still believes the monument should go.

"The court does not believe that the chief justice has presented even a substantial case on the merits," Thompson wrote.

Thompson said the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likely would have put his ruling on hold because there was not time for the court to review the case before the deadline.

In a statement, Moore said Thompson's ruling that the display is unconstitutional was "simply wrong."

Danielle Lipow, a lawyer suing to have the display removed, expressed disappointment the monument won't be removed immediately.

"But we absolutely expect to win on appeal. As Judge Thompson says in opinion, he also expects us to win," Lipow said.

Moore, a conservative Christian who campaigned for chief justice as the "Ten Commandments judge," had the Ten Commandments monument moved into the building in the middle of the night on July 31, 2001.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of three Alabama lawyers who said they were offended by the monument, the size of a washing machine.

Moore testified during a weeklong trial in October that he installed the monument partly because he is concerned there has been a moral decline in the country over the past 30 years.

In his ruling, Thompson agreed with monument opponents who argued they would be damaged as long as the monument is in the judicial building.

"But this case does not present a circumstance where the magnitude of the harm requires the appellate court to shoot from the hip," Thompson wrote.