It is curious that the supporters of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and the many Christian websites that defend his monolith to the ten commandments fail to mention the covert, almost vulpine way the monument got into the rotunda of Alabama High Court in the first place. Moore’s installation of a granite reproduction of “God’s law” was conducted with all the stealthy execution of a college engineering prank, from its funding (initially mysterious), and planning (furtive) to its clandestine arrival late at night two years ago. If one were less than charitable, it could be suggested that such an arcane adventure seemed designed to provoke a highly public fight, in lieu of enlightening and enlivening a public space with a bit of charming masonry. Bracketing its odd nocturnal arrival and Justice Moore’s maiuetic intent for a moment, a larger question emerges as to the origins of American jurisprudence and the influence of Hebraic law -- a question perhaps unwittingly raised by the many Christians who rallied to protest the monument’s removal. Exactly to what extent has Hebraic law, and the Ten Commandments specifically, influenced Western Civilization and American jurisprudence?

First though, what are Roy Moore and his followers claiming about the historical impact of the Ten Commandments? Are they some manifestation of divine law, a metaphysic code that undergirds present morality and law? If the Decalogue is a fundament, such an ontological deep structure, then fundamentalists must answer why American jurisprudence is so radically divergent from ancient Hebraic intent, with our Founding Fathers unwilling to enshrine seven of the commandments into our national laws [see note 1] . . . indeed, why our Patriarchs went in the opposite direction and said such nice things about religious tolerance. Justice Moore, and his lawyers, do not assert philosophic justifications for divine law but argue for a direct cultural influence between the Decalogue and modern American law. According to the September First issue of Time Magazine: “Moore’s lawyers had argued that U.S. law is founded on the Ten commandments, which are displayed, more subtly and often surrounded by secular legal symbols, in other government buildings around the country.” Their argument here is not that the Ten Commandments constitute a foundation of divine law (which is neither falsifiable nor provable), but that they are an intrinsic, historical part of our present legal system.

While perhaps some interchange of juridical knowledge from centuries of cultural encounters between the Jewish Diaspora and the many strands of Western Civilization might be assumed, pinning down a specific point of cultural transmission is far more troublesome and nebulous. Though there are many distinct Jewish conversations with the Greco-Roman world in terms of philosophy, literature, and myth Jewish communities in the Mediterranean and Middle East were historically on the receiving end of the laws of their conquerors. Babylonians, Greeks, then Romans dictated terms to the tribes of Israel, not vice versa, and most of modern American jurisprudence can be traced to Greco-Roman civic republicanism (hence the use of Latin, not Hebrew). (On civic republicanism, see Steven M. Levine's "A Republican Left.") After the arrival and crucifixion of Jesus, Christians were for centuries a repressed minority within the Roman world until the conversion of Constantine, and by the end of the fourth century, when Christianity became the Roman norm, the Christian break with the Jewish world was long established. Early Romans took their laws from Roman tradition and the new “Imperial Christ,” not the Ten Commandments. And just where are the “Judeo” elements aiding Moore’s struggle in Montgomery? Has the national press missed them? It clarifies the controversy to drop the “Judeo” prefix and look at this as a Christian issue. Or, after a thorough look at the particular commandments displayed, a Protestant issue, since sharply different versions exist between the “Ten Commandments” that Catholics, Jews and Protestants [see note 2] adhere to and on rare occasions worship.

Like the rest of the former British Empire, America’s colonial law was based on English common law; which, with its ancient Saxon roots, could be as irrational and cruel as that of Hebraic law: the innocent having to prove themselves such by exculpatory tasks like carrying a red hot iron or snatching a rock from a boiling cauldron. Under Henry II, English common law was codified in 1154 (with legislative authority established in 1215, see below) to combat and curb the greedy influence of the canonical (church) courts ultimately obedient to the Pope. Thomas Jefferson seems quite savvy to this civil/church distinction when he wrote to a friend in 1814 about the non-Christian origins of English Common Law and the historical irrelevancy of the Ten Commandments to our legal system:

Some early Christian communities in America, inspired by their strict Calvinist origins, attempted to use the occasional Old Testament commandment in establishing their codes, but this variance was rare (though some score witches were burned) as most of the 613 commandments were anachronistic and widely inapplicable. The Puritan covenants with their congregational polity and democratic focus on parish governance eventually led to the fissaporous forces of individualism, “half-way covenants,” revivalism, religious tolerance and finally Unitarianism. By the end of the 18th century most of the largest churches descended from Puritan precepts, especially but not exclusively in eastern Massachusetts, had become distinctly liberal in theology.

The early Puritans in America hewed not solely to the Decalogue in their religious practice but often put a strong emphasis on Christ’s love. In examining the Christian foundations of Biblical law, it would be incongruous to ignore the message and philology put forth by Christ himself in Matthew 22:37-40 “Jesus said unto him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [See note 4]

One wonders how effective Justice Moore would be if he were true to these supreme Christian commandments and dropped the moniker “The Ten Commandments Judge” to campaign as the “Love Judge.” 

Notes

1 What Protestants call the Tenth Commandment, which prohibits the coveting of thy neighbors wife, manservant, maidservant, ox, ass etc., seems distinctly un-American by present standards. Without coveting there can be little consumerism, no desire for the superfluous novelties of SUVs, duvets, plasma screen TVs, and Double Whoppers. No state government in Western society has prohibited coveting. The Founding Fathers left honoring the Sabbath and abstaining from adultery up to local governments; honoring ones parents, enforced monotheism, taking of a deity’s name in vain, and prohibitions on graven images have no trace in national law. It is a truly bizarre tautology to some of Justice Moore’s supporters in Montgomery bowing down in front of a graven image which explicitly forbids bowing down to a graven image (the Second Commandment (q.v. 2).

2 It is important to note that after Moses smashed the first two stone tablets containing the commandments (Exodus 20), God ordered him to write them again (Exodus 34) with some different commandments. As to the contrasting versions of the Ten Commandments among the different faiths please refer to: http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

3 http://www.secularhumanism.org/columns/history/decalogue.htm

4 A similar philanthropic command by Jesus can be found in John 13:34-35: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."