Moore's Ten Commandments   Moshe Ben-Chaim     Last week, Mesora issued a response to the Roy Moore/Ten Commandments controversy. As you know, a federal court decided against Judge Roy Moore housing a monument of the Ten Commandments in his court. We stood behind Judge Moore, and Alan Keyes. We explained the nature of our support: the Ten Commandments are a historical issue, not a religious one. Moore's position is that through housing the Ten Commandments monument, he supports his oath to abide by God's laws. Moore views the Ten Commandments not as a religious issue, but as a testament to God's laws. I limit my support to this argument alone.   Many readers wrote in to us saying, "How can Mesora support a Christian Ten Commandments", and, "What's next, allowing a court to place statues of Jesus and Mohammed?" Many of you feel this monument crossed the line into religion as Judeo-Christian favoritism, excluding other religions.   Christianity's worship of man, and other religions' selection of blind faith over reason, are the furthest thing from Judaism, as we have shown in so many of our articles. Our disagreement is never with followers of other religions; people arrive on the scene after their region has. Our arguments are aimed at religious belief, not religious followers. All religions believe their's is the "true" religion of God. Obviously, each religion maintains all others must be false. Reason too dictates this must be so: God would not create many opposing religions, so, one alone must be God's will, all others are impostors. Therefore, 'reason' alone is to be the deciding factor when selecting which religion is THE God-given system. Our article "Torah from Sinai", and "Why Be Observant" argue that Judaism is based on reason and proof - which no other religion claims.   Although these Ten Commandments form part of Christianity, they are not Christian in nature. Christian Bibles may include some alterations in the text of the Jewish words as recorded on the original Torah. So when we refer to the "Ten Commandments", we refer to God's Hebrew words alone, excluding all other versions. We do not tolerate any distortion of God's original Hebrew. This too Christians would agree to.   Now we come to the point of contention: Are the Ten Commandments standing in Judge Moore's court a support of religion? And, what do we mean when we say that America is one nation "under God", and "In God We Trust"? How does supporting God fit into our constitution, while simultaneously, we refrain from religious support under "church and state"?   There is to be no legislation of religion. If so, how can we still write on all coinage, "In God We Trust"? The difference is that although religion is not to be legislated, the U.S. government does not view belief in God as a "religious" issue. All religions attest to God's existence. One religion is not being favored over another. Therefore, belief in God is not a violation of "church and state". This reasoning can be understood. The U.S. government does not legislate religion, but wishes to enable freedom of religion. The government's support of a belief in God is not a support for any one religion, but a support of the belief in the Creator. Supporting a belief in God does not favor one religion over another. This does not violate "church and state".   This is where we must think clearly: When the U.S. government supports a belief in our God, how may citizens endorse such a belief? Certainly, if this belief in God is supported by government, then citizens of that government are correct to support this governmental belief. If God's giving of His Ten Commandments is a proof to His existence, for our "One nation under God", then placing a monument to these commandments is not violating "church and state", but in fact, supporting what U.S. law supports, "In God We Trust."   We support Judge Moore, as he supports the historical truth of God's existence, via this monument.   The truth is, there is no other event that Judge Moore could have found that supports the belief in God, better than the Ten Commandments' monument. This Sinaic event was witnessed by millions of people. This story in our possession today, of a mountain on fire, of words emanating from the fire, would not have been spread - had it been false. What happened is that all eyewitnesses passed down the details of this great revelation at Sinai. World history, not religion, attests to God's giving of the Ten Commandments. Again, had such an event never transpired, not only would it have never spread, but there would be, somewhere, a record of the "true" history of the Jews at that era. But there is not one other account, because the exact Jewish history is recorded, commencing thousands of years before Sinai, through thousands of years after. The only way the story of God giving the Ten Commandments to Moses on Sinai was accepted by the world, is because it must have happened. Just like all history attested to by masses of eyewitnesses is verified as 100% truth, Sinai, which had mass witnesses in the millions, is credible evidence to its veracity. We accept the miracles and Divine revelation at Mount Sinai as much as we accept Caesar's rulership of Rome. Masses present at a historical event is the formula which proves accurate history, beyond any doubt.   World history cannot be altered. Judge Moore teaches world history, and part of it is God's revelation to the Jewish nation at Sinai. Denouncing Judge Moore's support of the Ten Commandments is a denial of the God of our nation. Moore supports "In God We Trust" in its best form - the historical event of Sinai that proves God's existence.   This is Mesora's support of Moore, as Moore does not endorse a favoritism of one religion over others. To Moore, the Ten Commandments are not about religion, but are a historical proof of God. Judge Roy Moore endorses God's existence. Moore is careful not to cross the line into a religious support of Christianity. He understands "church and state". We endorse this specific stand of Judge Moore; to endorse God's existence through His historically true and proven giving of the Ten Commandments.   However, if the situation were where someone sought to promote religion through housing these tablets, we would oppose such a practice. This would violate freedom of religion. No governmental party may support religion. Religious freedom is our constitutional right, and to be practiced only by citizens and their groups, but not enforced by ant governmental officer, or group.   An interesting question arises; would a monument to the creation of the Earth be in violation of "church and state"? On the surface, you would say no. But think about it. The solar system is no less an act of God, than the Ten Commandments. Yes, American culture has forced all "scientific" phenomenon under the category of "science", not religion, and all "religious" phenomenon, under "church and state". But are these categories accurate?   Up to this point, I have been using U.S. Government categories. I will answer this question using God's categories. The creation of the Earth has one goal, man's perfection via knowledge of God, "...and the land (God has) given to the children of man." (Psalms, 115:16) The creation of Earth was for the existence of man - man's existence is solely to know his Creator. Earth is then a prerequisite for the Ten Commandments, as both, the Earth and the Commandments join in the singular goal of studying God's works: His physical creation, and His metaphysical laws. Earth and Commandments represent these two categories. A monument to the Ten Commandments would be no more religious than one to the creation of the Earth. Both affirm God as the Creator, and once you affirm this, you cannot separate between God, and His will.   What are we defining as "God"? Our definition is only by way of reference. We cannot point to Him, or describe His essence, as our minds are incapable of this, "No man can know Me an live". (Exod., 33:20) We refer to God by His actions, or by His universe. But we cannot stop there, God has done much more. He performed miracles, interceded with man, and gave us His Ten Commandments. An accurate definition of God must include all we know He has performed. Just as observing half of scientific knowledge will corrupt our knowledge of science, so too, dismissing much knowledge of God's actions must corrupt our view of God. To affirm God, means to affirm ALL that He has done. If we affirm His destruction of peoples, such as the Flood and Sodom, but we do not affirm His delivery of Jews from unlawful bondage, we will view God as evil. A complete picture of God's actions is necessary, if we are to appreciate what is truly God. We cannot separate "God" from His actions.   For governing diverse peoples in one country, "church and state" secures for the individual his and her freedom of religion. But for the philosopher, separation between "church and state" presents a problem. God has in fact not only created the Earth, but He has given man existence, and divine laws for his existence. God is inseparable from His laws.