Amy Peet’s attempts at defending Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s placement of an extremely large sculpture dedicated to the Ten Commandments in her Aug. 27 column, “Ten Commandments are part of American history,” are unimpressive. I question whether she really believes what she is writing, but for the sake of argument let us assume she does.

Ms. Peet tries to make the issue a question of offending the sensibilities of the plaintiffs, when it is actually a question of the separation of church and state. The plaintiffs need to establish standing to sue, which is why they need to show they are somehow affected by the 5,300 pound monument.

The real issue is whether the monument violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The answer is obvious, considering the testimony that Moore himself gave when being questioned during the district trial:

Q: “And the monument is also intended to acknowledge God’s overruling power over the affairs of men, would that be correct?”

A: “Yes.”

No reasonable person would consider this monument a primarily secular appreciation of the historical significance of the Law of Moses. Moore has rebuffed several attempts to place other monuments in the vicinity, including a speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. and a symbol of atheism, because “[the Ten Commandments] stand alone as an acknowledgement of that God that is contained in our pledge…”

When the government clearly favors one religion over another, something should be done.

Drew Miller

Senior

Computer Science