Subscription Lists
Point of Reference
by Fred Price
The question as to whether there is a higher moral law to which we will all be held accountable has been highlighted once again in the face-off between Judge Roy Moore of Alabama and those opposed to the Ten Commandments memorial displayed (until recently) in that state's rotunda. Judge Moore has vowed to take his cause to the Supreme Court in an attempt to see the monument re-instated to what he feels is its proper place of prominence.
In the shadows of this judicial battle lie the questions that must be answered before any reasonable solution can be arrived at. Was our nation founded on principles of Christianity? Are our laws based on the fundamental principles found in its moral code? Was that intentional? Did many other nations follow our lead in creating their own governmental and judicial systems? Does that matter anymore? My personal response to these questions is YES to all of the above; a more eloquent response was submitted recently to the Indianapolis Star by the Rev. Rob Schenck, founder of the Ten Commandments Project in Washington, D.C.
He believes our country's moral and judicial laws are indeed rooted in the precepts of the Ten Commandments and supports that belief with the following. "It could be argued that the Ten Commandments should be publicly displayed for no other reason than that these precepts informed our founders. Our system of law is based on English Common Law, which had its moral foundation in the Ten Commandments. But there are other reasons for theses timeless words to be publicly recognized by Americans."
The Commandments are a constant reminder of a higher moral authority than us. We are not the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong. The image of Moses in the Capitol is a statement that the laws of God are higher than the laws of man. Not all governments agree. In many countries, murder serves a state purpose. Not so here; we believe moral absolutes control governments as much as individuals. We can't change the commandment against murder because we didn't make it in the first place. So it is with all the commandments and the laws they effect.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says the commandments can't be displayed publicly because they reference God. Yet the Declaration of Independence refers to 'Nature's God.' Our president swears in his oath of office 'so help me God.' Congress begins its day with a prayer to God. The Supreme Court itself announces every sitting with 'God save the United States and this honorable court.'
Contrary to what some critics claim, this public acknowledgement of God transcends religious sectarianism and unites us, rather than divides us. Our national motto, carried on our money is 'In God We Trust.' We pledge allegiance to 'one nation under God.' The Ten Commandments simply explain what God requires of us. Jews, Christians and Muslims equally revere the Commandments and nearly every other religious and secular group considers them beneficial for society.
The founders knew liberty could be afforded only to a people restrained internally by a moral governor. No matter how many laws we have against murder, how many police we have to catch culprits, how many courts we have to prosecute and punish them and how many prisons we have to lock them up, only a conscience informed by a law greater than a human law can stop a murder before it happens. Displaying the Ten Commandments on public property is an admission by all of this truth.
This is not an attempt to turn back the clock to the good old days; they had their own problems. Rather it is an attempt to revert back to the ideals, moral code and principles that revolutionized not just this country but the thinking of many others as well. Nor is it an attempt to resist progress, learning and change. It is, however, an attempt to guide progress and change in all aspects of life in such a way as to ensure that the changes that occur are indeed progress and beneficial for all.
A case in point would be the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 which challenged the state of Tennessee's law that mandated only the teaching of intelligent design or creation in it's schools, seeking to open the door to evolution's theory of chance and natural selection. William Jennings Bryan championed creationism's cause and was often savaged by Clarence Darrow for his stand; as no real proof could be offered to support evolution's claims, an attempt was made to portray Mr. Bryan and others of his ilk as anti-education, anti-progressive, fundamentalist bumpkins.
Mr. Bryan died not long after the trial and his wife released a prepared statement which in part tried to clarify his stand and rebuke the claims of his opponent. In it he said, "Science is a magnificent material force, but is not a teacher of morals... It can build gigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm-tossed human vessels... The world needs a Savior more than ever before."
His insight echoes throughout time to our present day, as do the Ten Commandments, and were no more true then than now.
Rate it:
Fred Price - married (50 years), father of two grown children, grandfather of six.
Fred retired earlier this year after 42 years as a factory worker. He has always had a heart for young people and the challenges they face today. Over the years Fred has taught Discipleship Groups for High School and college students.
Receive the newest devotional each week in your inbox by joining the "Point of Reference" subscription list. Enter your email address below, click "Go!" and we will send you a confirmation email. Follow the instructions in the email to confirm your addition to this list.