The original defender of the Ten Commandments, Moses, understood that there was no value in the stones on which the law was written. Value was in the one from whom the law originated.
He understood the meaning of symbolism-that a symbol should cause its admirer to reflect not on the symbol itself, but on that object for which the symbol stands. Should the Ten Commandments monument that was removed from the Alabama Judicial Building receive the same honor as the original tablets from which it gains its symbolic meaning?
If yes, then let the monument be smashed to bits.
This was the fate of the original tablets-tablets not carved by human hands, as is the monument in question. No enemy of religion destroyed them. Not even a well-intentioned defender of a “higher law” was responsible for their demise. Their destroyer was Moses.
His deed is no dark secret. He smashed the tablets at the foot of the mountain for all to see. He did not try to cover up his actions. The record we have of the event is the one Moses wrote.
Even if such an action angered God, his anger must have been brief as he soon produced another copy for his quick-tempered servant. Where is that second set of tablets now? It has the grand distinction of being lost, perhaps somewhere in a golden box along with other relics of the Judaic faith.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments monument has not been destroyed or lost, but only removed from the judicial building.
Removal of the monument has not diminished the Ten Commandments’ significance any more than defacing Mount Rushmore would diminish the lives of past great American presidents.
Why then has a symbol caused such a fuss?
The fuss over constitutional issues regarding religion and government will continue as long as courts continue to rule inconsistently.
Phrases like “In God We Trust” and “so help me God” are considered legal. A monument to ancient law is not.
The Supreme Court can display a sculpture of Moses holding two tablets, while a judicial building cannot display a sculpture of those same tablets.
The inconsistency of court decisions might be traced to the confusion in interpreting constitutions-federal and state.
Does the Constitution allow the government to acknowledge God in any manner?
The mention of God is absent in the Constitution. For that matter, the mention of God is absent in the book of Esther in the Bible.
The point is that not mentioning God might suggest a number of things, but it holds no significance for the legal arguments concerning religion.
Whether the Constitution’s writers had God in mind is irrelevant.
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Federal law supercedes state law, but Moore defends his refusal to obey a federal court order on the basis of his duty to Alabama’s state constitution.
Its Preamble reads, “We, the people of the State of Alabama … invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama.”
Alabama’s constitution is in violation of the First Amendment because it establishes law based on a religious belief, namely, that an Almighty God exists.
Amid the confusion of interpreting courts and constitutions, Moore has stood firm-right or wrong. To his credit, his tablets survived longer than Moses’ originals.
Then again, Moses only had to answer to God-not to the Supreme Court.
Michael Stewart is a senior philosophy and religion major. He can be reached at [email protected].