RubySoho
Winston
Ten Commandments, Five Objections
April 28th 2008 22:45
I don't know why, but today I just got to thinking about the Ten Commandments and the manner in which they are perceived by many U.S. citizens. Perhaps it is the constant barrage lately of politics, values voters and Red state/Blue state divides. Perhaps it is due to the continued efforts of the Religious Right to turn religious philosophy into political reality. Whatever the reason for it being on my mind, let us talk now of these Ten Commandments, the divine laws handed down by God himself to guide humanity in righteousness. Here are the laws, as provided by the New Revised Standard Edition of the Bible:
I) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; Do not have any other gods before me.
II) You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
III) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
IV) Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
V) Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
VI) You shall not murder.
VII) You shall not commit adultery.
VIII) You shall not steal.
IX) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
X) You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
These laws (originally carved into stone tablets by Jehovah and handed to Moses, who I'm sure was none too pleased about having to schlep them all the way back down Mt. Sinai) are purported by many Christians and Jews alike to be the most perfect set of rules ever devised. There is a sizable chunk of the U.S. population, in fact, who truly believes that our country and its laws are founded upon Biblical principles in general, and the Ten Commandments in particular. There's been clamor and outcry recently over decisions to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from courthouses and government buildings, amidst cries that our Founding Fathers built our country upon those ten laws. Those beliefs are misguided and, ultimately, incorrect. And here's why:
1) To begin with, let's look at the laws themselves. These laws are supposedly perfect in every sense, in all matters of justice and fairness and order. In that case every one of these laws should not only be applicable in every day life, but entirely essential. Is this the case? Look again. The first four commandments are all prohibitions and demands set down by a petty dictator to enforce compliance and control. They have nothing to do with lawfulness in any sense meaningful to society. In fact, there is a clear endorsement of injustice by God when he says, "for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me". Come again? Is it just and lawful to punish children for crimes committed by their parents? The idea is absurd. But then again, this notion is the entire foundation of the Jewish and Christian faiths (ie. that mankind inherits original sin from Adam and Eve, and that only by Jesus' blood sacrifice are we cleansed of this sin and permitted into God's presence in heaven). Religions built upon the principle that you're guilty for things that other people did wrong are probably a bad place to look to for a source of judicial inspiration. Plus, the first four rules have nothing to do with how people should interact with other people at all. We're off to a bad start here in terms of applicability to our laws....
2) The Commandments that are actually concerned with everyday life (as opposed to detailing the proper way to worship God) are hardly original. God did not invent law, and neither did the Jews. Other, older codes of laws spelled out the same prohibitions. The best known of these is the Code of Hammurabi. It contains all the same rules (don't murder, steal, etc. and so forth) along with about 300 others. The Code is a very complete set of laws. It is not perfect by any means; it is brutal and direct when it comes to meting out punishments for transgressions. But then again, so was Hebrew Law (read Leviticus or Deutoronomy). What is it, exactly, that makes the Ten Commandments so superior? Nothing that I can see.
3) There is a lot of inconsistency inherent in the Commandments. On the one hand God says, "thou shalt not murder". In the next breathe, he sends the Israelites out to slaughter rival tribe after rival tribe. What should be viewed as minor transgressions (working on the Sabbath Day, not honoring your mother and father) are punishable by death. Huh? Stoning someone to death for working on the Sabbath Day is murder in my book, and it would be considered such in any developed nation in the world today. The Ten Commandments cautions about something as trivial as coveting your neighbor's stuff, but has nothing to say about slavery (other parts of the Old Testament expressly condone it). The Ten Commandments makes it a crime to make a statue, but has nothing to say about rape (although that is also condoned in other passages in the Bible). Big omissions and flaws, if you ask me.
4) The Ten Commandments advocates an Orwellian notion of punishment for thought crimes. Believing in another god? Coveting stuff? You can't possibly punish someone for what they think, as you can never really KNOW what they think. If you ask someone, he or she could just violate commandment #9 and lie, after all. Even if someone openly covets something that belongs to someone else, you can't punish him for being jealous. That's his own problem. Actions can be prosecuted; thoughts cannot. How is the tenth commandment enforceable in any reasonable sense? As for being punished for worshiping another god....insane. You can't choose to believe something. Wanting to believe it, or being told to, is not the same thing as actually believing it. Either you are convinced by some evidence or you're not. You either subscribe to a certain mode of thought or you don't, depending on how compelling the argument for or against it is. You can't wake up one day and say, "ya know what, today I'm going to start believing in Hinduism." That's not how it works. So, to be punished with death for your personal beliefs? That is about as unjust as you can get.
5) The Founding Fathers expressly did NOT intend for there to be a religious basis for our government. Quite the opposite actually. Several of the most prominent of the FF's were deists (Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, for example). That is, they believed in a god completely unmoved by and uninvolved in human affairs. The Constitution has only one mention of anything involving god, and that is the date ("...in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven"). To top it all off, various writings by these men make plain their thoughts on the matter. To those of you who believe that America is a Christian nation founded upon Biblical laws and principles, I present to you the Founding Fathers:
-"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." (Thomas Jefferson)
-"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (James Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789)
"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." (Patrick Henry)
-"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst." (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)
-"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'" (James Madison, Veto, 1811)
-"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...." (John Adams, 1787)
-"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith." (Thomas Paine, the Rights of Man)
These are the guys who set up the system and wrote our laws. Argue that they were wrong, argue that the Ten Commandments should be the basis of our laws, but please refrain from trying to alter what was actually expressed by our nation's founders. That drives me nuts.
At any rate, what is the bottom line here? Obviously we're not jailing (or executing) people for worshiping other gods or false idols, and we don't convict for failing to honor one's parents. We neither condemn people who work on the Sabbath Day, nor do we prosecute those who take the Lord's name in vain. You can covet all you want and adultery, while unethical, is not illegal. The same goes for lying, except when under oath in court. The reason we don't prosecute these "crimes" is because they are entirely irrelevant to the business of government, and completely at odds with any sort of free society. So that leaves us with 2 rules that are actually on the books and enforced. No killing and no stealing. That's what we needed God to tell us? Those are the perfect rules that we couldn't have thought up ourselves? Altruism and cooperation are obviously not worth the effort for their own sakes, so it's a good thing someone thought to suggest them to us.
The Ten Commandments were relevant for a specific tribe of people in the past with a specific viewpoint and set of values. To point to these archaic, simplistic scribblings as being the cornerstone of our laws today is ludicrous. It's an insult to those who founded our country, and it's an insult to all the time and work that has gone into crafting laws that are infinitely more nuanced and just (although still far from perfect). A society that ever attempted to enforce the Commandments as law would find itself gripped by fear and devoid of liberty. That would be a terrible tragedy. Liberty is the greatest gift we have, and it is one that the author of the Commandments failed to give us.
| 135 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
But you know you are making the same mistake as Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris right? You are injecting reason and rationality into a discussion on religion. No point in highlighting all the contradictions, hypocricies, double standards etc - they believe in God and that belief alone requires you leave your reason at the door.
But I love how Jehovah tells people not to feel envy or covet anything but then proudly proclaims how jealous he is. jeez, you'd think the creator of the universe would be a little more secure huh?
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
...and when that doesn't work anymore, put some flouride in the water, that'll dumb them down....
What always amazes me is that in a society that is supposedly built on the understanding of these commandments based in such harsh chastity; there is rampant rape, promiscuity, divorce, murder, and social rot, and yet in a polytheisic one - like Hinduism - where Krishna was a knockabout, happy-go-lucky, kind of bachelor-type with his concubine Rada - you have (by compasiron) a relatively pure, stalwart fidelity-minded, low-crime, low-murder, low-rape, society?
It does raise the question of why the confusion... and can you really seperate religion/belief from politics... should you try?
I'm not talking theft, mind, that seems to be a constant throughout them all, doesn't it - no matter who wrote it - even God himself!?
*laughs* anyway, as an ecclectic eccentric - always light and always amused by "laws" of every kind... and from my own research, have to agree with you that it does seem that the Jewish people were given the 2nd Edition of these rules, as you say (?)
A very well argued post, one which I throughly enjoyed reading. Thank you.
Lilla ...
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
It was an interesting article, but there's a few things I disagree with. First, worshipping a God is not the same as believing in it. This commandment against worshipping meant not to bow down to idols or anything. In a sense, we can break that commandment by worshipping money almost as if it were a God.
Secondly, although I don't think we could say that the law is based completely on the ten commandments, I do believe that it is based on Christian principles. I do think also that the ten commandments are important as giving us certain guidelines to live by.
As for the jealous God thing - that just happens to be one of the verses in the bible I wish I could use a black texta to cross out. I don't really have enough time to go into my thoughts on the matter here. Which is a bit of a cop out, I know. But there you go.
Samaritan
www.fringefaith.com
Comment by Louie
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
That's actually not true, just that the polytheisic types don't mind the tonnes of sex so much and they believe they are completely justified in their violence.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I'm not qualified (or nearly vilified) enough to be mentioned in the same vein as Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris, but I have found their forthright addresses of these issues inspiring. All other topics are up for debate, so religion must be as well. No more double standards.
Of course, I have neither the energy nor the inclination to address the sum total of the problems with religion as they do. Point of fact, I don't really care what people believe, as that is their choice. I only really get steamed when those unfounded beliefs begin to creep insidiously into politics and education.
How much of this mindset, of this desire to inject religion into politics and education and to rewrite history, do you encounter in Oz? It can't be as prevalent as it is here.....
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I think Australia has always had a more relaxed attitude about religion. Secularists don't freak out about singing carols at school or religious displays because we have never been in danger of having our education overtaken by religious dogma.
Why is this so? I think because we are a nation founded on convicts and yours is a nation founded on puritanism. History lives on in us I guess. Religion was just never a major player here.
Thank goodness. i think I would just about lose it if anyone here tried to tell our kids that we were created 6000 years ago and that if they had sex they would be sure to shrivel up and die from AIDS. How do they get away with calling that education? I remember learning about sex, when I was in primary school, really learning about it, not just been told to keep my legs closed.
The mind truly boggles.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
It does raise the question of why the confusion... and can you really seperate religion/belief from politics... should you try?
That's a bit complex, because to an extent I suppose that it can't be totally separated. People who are devout may be unwilling or unable to check their faith at the door. And it isn't exactly necessary that they do. Their faith can (and almost certainly does) act as one of their guiding principles. However, what they can and must do is resist the idea that their faith is the only faith, or that faith is necessary to the process at all. When it comes to politics and laws, they must in the end be secular.
That's the whole point, to have a neutral system of rules for EVERYONE, regardless of race or creed. No favoritism. That's the entire gist of the system, and frankly I'm tired of certain groups of theists trying to subvert it. I don't ask anyone to give up their religion, I only ask that it remain THEIR religion and not impact me. These efforts by some Christians in America to co-opt the Founding Fathers and reframe the birth of our nation makes me see red, because it is so transparently dishonest. Christianity is already widely practiced and influential here. Is it necessary to engage in 1984-style revisionist history to further bolster it as well? It is my history as well as theirs, and I won't see it tampered with.
The Commandments belong in churches and temples. They even belong in history books in schools, in the proper context. Not in my laws, and not in my courts. Not on public classroom walls. No Commandments, no Sharia Law, no Upanishads, and no other ancient proclamations from holy books. Just the laws devised by Man and his Reason, thank you.
Sorry, that was a bit of a rant! Glad you enjoyed the post, and thanks very much for the input.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
There seems to be an alternative view of history where everything good that happened has to be because of the Christian values behind it - and let's just ignore everything bad that Christians have done. As you know, I am a committed Christian. But to pretend that everything good in the world was done by Christians is just as ridiculous as pretending that Christians have never done anything wrong. We need to take a realistic view at the way religion has played a part in history, so that we can learn from it.
Are there more of you? Can you move here and tell some people this? Please?
At any rate, on to your points:
First, worshipping a God is not the same as believing in it. This commandment against worshipping meant not to bow down to idols or anything. In a sense, we can break that commandment by worshipping money almost as if it were a God.
That's one interpretation, I agree. But it almost certainly also relates to worshiping other gods, and not just putting other things before god. In either case, the only "crime" committed is solely in the mind of the transgressor. Whether or not we interpret the passage literally as worshiping other gods, or metaphorically as worshiping earthly things, it is still a) not applicable in our legal system and b) not moral to punish people only for what they think.
Secondly, although I don't think we could say that the law is based completely on the ten commandments, I do believe that it is based on Christian principles. I do think also that the ten commandments are important as giving us certain guidelines to live by.
I really have to disagree here. Rather than say that it is based on Christian principles, I would posit that the Christian principles you find applicable in law are actually principles than humanity has agreed on for long before Christians and Jews existed. Wanton killing and theft destabilizes a society, and it's in any society's best interests to prohibit those behaviors. Same goes for lying. Just because laws have these things in common, it does not necessitate that they are based in Christianity.
And yes, there are a couple good guidelines in the Commandments, such as honoring your parents and curbing jealousy. But other cultures have produced guidelines as good or better. Again, I think these are intrinsically human attributes that stretch across borders and religions. They get expressed through the religions of the cultures of the globe, and the wording may be different, but the overall ideas are the same the world over.
As for the jealous God thing - that just happens to be one of the verses in the bible I wish I could use a black texta to cross out.
Samaritan, there's not enough ink to wipe out all the objectionable things that God says in the Bible. I also won't get into my thoughts on that here, this reply is running long as is. Thanks again for your comments here, your contribution is greatly appreciated!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Although if the Church wants to pop out a new version, I'd be curious to see what they come up with. Possibly something about not abusing children and then covering it up, or perhaps not hoarding incalculable wealth in your Roman palace while millions of your followers go hungry? Nah, now I'm just being silly.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
If you think it's mind-boggling and annoying from over there, just imagine it from my end......
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
I was just commenting on inner-city statistics, my friend (I was not hinking of rural sati or dowry deaths) at the time... you may have a point if these are included?
Winston,
I have to agree with you on this issue;
However, the Lord's prayer still said in assemblies all over the western world, daily... doesn;t that subliminally acknowledge the ten commandements by virtue of it's origins?
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
Specifically I was relating my own experience in a British Government Public School where we would say the Lord's Prayer daily at morning assembley. As I understand it (and am no expert on all the figures) but it still goes on a bit in rural Australian Public Schools and many parts of Europe.
Of course there are the private Catholic schools and Lutherian, and Protestant schools and such like... which I do not know whether are permitted there in the States?
They are all raised on a curriculum which is created through Biblical teachings and other church dogma ... allowed by government. How on earth can 'society' suddenly not have a view based on the tennents of the Ten Commandements when these youngsters are the bulk of that society?
Imagine your entire school life learning about them and the entire semitic system, then when entering university/society, being told that you are expressly forbidden from using any of what you learnt if you want to participate in the "Real World.'
*laughs* What you learnt is probably not true, no longer valid and not to even be breathed within the halls of power... the same power that is now screwing up the planet and everyone's lives across the globe, mind?
I think that would cause confusion amongst even the most education, let alone those of average intelligence, don't you? And it explains, perhaps WHY the majority of society has this view - even those raised in non-religious schools whose parents make them attend church each Sunday?
No wonder no one bothers with politics or trying to understand the policy makers - allowing them to 'get away with murder.'
It is all just too confusing...
Lilla ...
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
When you take all the generations in the Bible from Adam and Eve onward and add them up- 12,000 years.
As Bill Hicks once said "well how fucking scientific!"
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
It would not surprise me in the slightest to find public schools in backwater areas that still feature compulsory prayer. And yes, we have private religious schools here. I myself attended parochial school for 12 years. College was the first time I went to a school without a religious affiliation. Despite this, I had little trouble grasping the necessity of division between religion and government. Obviously the 12 years of Catholic school didn't stick in my case, but even before I heaved it all overboard I never thought that the two should be integrated. I don't think the idea ever crossed my mind....possibly because even though I went to a Catholic school, I still got a good education. No one ever tried to tell me that the country was founded upon the Ten Commandments. I'm sure some comparisons were drawn, although I don't recall them, but that idea was never explicitly taught. Mainly because it isn't true. Children being taught that now are being fed a lie, and an easily disputed one at that. I don't think it's just learning about the Commandments that is the problem (in this instance) as much as the contextual twisting and blatant disregard for the facts.....
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
I guess my point is, that the current law within our democratic model, does uphold many of the commandements - therefore offering almost covert acknowledgement?
I say this in particular reference to commandements VI, VII, VIII and to some extent IX (as it incorporates the rules upheld within the courts, where the crimes of the previous three are dealt with) ...
... perhaps some re-education to allow people to realise the other cammandements were - as you say, '...relevant for a specific tribe of people in the past with a specific viewpoint and set of values...' and probably need updating, even superceding - certainly annexing, as so many 'features' are now null and void - truth be told the three basic laws are overdue for revision too...(?) not to mention thought police and the new intellectual property laws.
I do not have the answers, only (like you) more questions... but it has been nice to be able to talk to someone about 'ideas,' without causing a furor to do so...
Thanks for chatting.
Lilla ...