It is often said that the biblical Ten Commandments form the basis of our legal system. So I thought I would do a quick review to see how that founding basis fares in contemporary American legal practice.
So how do the Ten Commandments hold up? I count only three that are still fully enshrined in our legal system in a way that Moses would recognize.
From Spinoza to the British Empiricists to the Founding Fathers, we inherit a notion that society can, and should, make laws to create conditions in which society can stay in existence and flourish. If an idea is thought good, but not necessary for society's continued existence, than it should be a matter of private advocacy, but not a matter of law.
Proper laws can be much more detailed and situational than the Ten Commandments. The notion that everyone should drive their vehicle on the same side of the road was probably not important in Biblical times, but the mayhem and chaos that would result in a world of planes, trains, and automobiles without such restrictions almost defies imagination.
Also, that something is not a matter of law does not mean it is still not a cherished value of society. Individuals and groups may still chose to adhere to a principle without the lash of the law. The Commandment for monotheism is not the law in the United States, but a higher percentage of Americans regularly attend church, synagogue, or mosque than almost anywhere else in the world.
Which brings me to two debates that bring the libertarian tradition of our legal system into focus: abortion and gay marriage. For both issues, one side wants to make their position a matter of law, enforcing it on the entire population. The other side wants to leave it as a matter of individual choice, which is different from wanting to impose a different set of ideas on the entire population.
The asymmetry of the intent of the sides is too often overlooked. Advocates of gay marriage do not want to change traditional marriage in any way. They do not want gay people who do not believe in gay marriage, for whatever reason including religious beliefs, to have to marry. They want the choice available to people; the other side wants to eliminate the choice by force of law.
One can believe that a thing is wrong and still not want to legally proscribe it. Barry Goldwater was no advocate of abortion, but he believed it was not a proper subject for state control. He held to the clarity of this distinction despite howls of disappointment and disapprobation from fellow Conservatives.
The history of centuries of evolution of our legal system shows that short run noise and emotion eventually give way to the view of Spinoza, Locke, and Jefferson: society can only really enforce those laws truly necessary to the survival of society. Can society survive abortion and gay marriage? Most likely we will persist and persevere, no worse than we are doing without seven of the Ten Commandments.
Stuart Whatley: Democratic Values, Islam and the Judeo-Christian Tradition Fallacy
Alex Wilhelm: Why the Ten Commandments Are Un-American
Oklahoma county must pay up in Ten Commandments case
Schwarzenegger: Allow same-sex marriages to resume
Uganda Presidency Says Otunnu Hiding Behind Political Persecution Claims
The murder commandment is pretty much a non-starter. There is no one exempt from being killed in Mosaic history. Reading the KJV, you might notice references to laws predating the Commandments as well as references to commandments that had not yet been given. Then proceed to Deuteronomy and find the other 600 or so laws, just as binding as the ten. These were a people plagued by laws on just about everything. YHWH was apparently a very controlling deity. So, those of you wearing mixed fabrics, how about you straighten up your act? And let's get the vain use of God off the money and the pledge and license plate holders while we're at it.
Not one jot, not one tittle, people, so if you insist on believing, you need to stop making excuses for yourself. Otherwise, you don't really believe at all.
And all you Christians, just ignore that Old Hebrew Testament. It was not for you. It was for the Israelites. Their god, not yours. Steal their thunder all you want to, but if you don't hail from the tribe of Abraham, Jacob, et. al. you may as well toss the first half of your book since it has no bearing on your life.
Note also that each prophet in the OT and NT left us with specific commandments.
The laws of Hammurabi preceded the X Commandments.
The leaders were always looking for a means to control the followers.
.
The Ten Commandments are 'negotiable' to most 'practitioners'...because secular law says so...and most practitioners have accepted modified interpretations, re-interpretations, and interpretations of re-interpretations.
.
When a religion claims possession...then God is theirs to own and possess and interpret, or misinterpret.
.
Thus, the existance of 'Parables'...to clarify to the Pharasee-Christians that they do not have the liberty to misinterpret lest they be hypocrites;
- "...Fresh Water/Salt Water"
- "...Who is truly your brother's Keeper"
- "...with a log in yours"
.
Too often, 'believers' vs. Believers', is clouded...by our own interest, bias, racism, sexism, greed, phobias.
.
So, who truly...'is your brother's keeper'
The second table of the law is about our relationship with one another. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."
Children being part of the the human family are included.
You shall not murder. . . "we should not endanger our neighbor's life, nor cause him [her] any harm, but help and befriend him [her] in every necessity of life."
You shall not steal. . . "we should not rob our neighbor of his [her] money or property, nor bring them into our possession by dishonest trade or by dealing in shoddy wares, but help him [her] to improve and protect his income and property.
You shall not bear fase witness against your neighbor. . . "we should not tell lies about our neighbor, nor betray, slander, or defame him [her], but should apologize [defend] for him [her], speak well of him [her], and interpret charitably all that he [she] does."
people always seem to find a way around laws and commandments.
this is why when I was young I dated catholic girls. :-)
religion with its commandments is an interesting human phenomenon.
we humans are an interesting species.
the atheists and buddhists think something can come from nothing. well kind of with the buddhists.
the religious think their religion is thee religion.
what is the origin of all that ignorance??????
discover that origin and you will view the world in a whole new light.
realize that origin and you will I suspect become a buddha.
the greatest of theft is a capitalist system that even makes huge profits off the sick and needy and those in prisons and of course its wars for corp profits.
instead in america now we blame the poorest of the poor for our economic that come here to work for cheap wages brought on by a system based on greed and materialism.
what commandment is that against??????????????
next will be education. there is where some huge profits lie asleep there for the taking.
these capitalists will take only those that will make you huge profits.
the rest with pre existing educational hardship conditions leave to the state.
pure genius.
here is the best part americans consider themselves a loving and compassionate people.
go figure.
Well, actually, so do the theists -- only they inject a magical Great Ooga-Booga into the equation.
Don't they?
Utter uneducated bunk. No Buddhist would ever suggest such a thing, and for YOU to suggest it shows your level of ignorance.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
As American as apple pie. Get it? Got it? GOOD!
I kept looking for the commandment that said, "Don't mistreat the kiddies." Never found it, of course.
"Don't mistreat the kiddies." They couldn't add that one as it was permissable to stone to death disobedient children.
They also couldn't add,
"Thou shalt not have slaves."
"Thou shalt not commit genocide."
"Thou shalt not be a racist."
"Thou shalt not rape the women of defeated tribes."
"Thou shalt not hesitate to give up your daughter as a substitute when a gang of men want to rape your male house guests."
For my final piece of cynicism, a modern addition which will never be considered might be:
"Thou shalt not doubt my love, benevolence and mercy when faced with off-the-scale human tragedy caused by natural disaster which, being omnipotent, I could have stopped."
I do not think the lesson from Exodus is to not take God's commandments seriously. Much of the Tanakh is Yahweh punishing His people for disobeying him or prophets warning of punishment.
Moses in this example ordered the massacre in response for violating the 1st commandment. Not sure how one can derive a lackadaisical approach approach toward the commandments from this example.
//Death was the penalty for violating not only the Commandments, but a host of other rules (see Leviticus for a partial list). //
Whether you say "kill" or whether you say "murder" the question remains: who, exactly, is protected by this meaningless commandment? Children, wives, other tribes, your own tribe, all can be killed for any rule infraction. Pick up sticks on the sabbath? Die!
If the commandment were taken to heart, we would rid ourselves of the death penalty, wars, and, well, murder. Posting the commandments in city parks doesn't seem to have done much to alleviate any of it.
How much of your taxes actually go to pay for others medical care? My guess it is less than $1.00 a year. So your saying for $1 a year I am allowed to arbitrarily impose my sense of morality on others?
I don't think that he is saying that at all.
He is saying that HE is allowed to arbitrarily impose his sense of morality on others.
The notion of separation of Church and State was developed into the form we recognize by the British Empiricists, and put into the language that directly influenced the American Founders by John Locke a century after Spinoza. But Spinoza clearly anticipated the idea that power flows from the people, not from God, and that notion logically leads to separation of Church and State.
For ideas like these, the Jewish community of Amsterdam excommunicated Spinoza at age 23. He lived a quiet life in Amsterdam until his early death at 44 of a lung disease that might have been brought on by his profession as a lens grinder. He turned down numerous honors. But he cannot escape the honor of being the intellectual father of modernism.
That said, it seems to be a mistake to give Spinoza too much credit in these things. The roots of political power in Spinoza is taken from Hobbes. What is interesting in Spinoza is that while Hobbes mistakenly thinks that a monarchy ideally follows from this (although one that rejects divine rights of kings) Spinoza correctly saw that a system of checks and balances was what followed (and actually reads checks and balances in the government of the Israelites). I think if you check your dates you will find that Locke is only a generation younger than Spinoza rather than a century later.
It is even odder to credit Spinoza with modern enlightenment science which has its roots in Gallileo and Descartes. I would credit Spinoza most with his recognition of the importance of balancing powers, and his understanding that governments evolve while revolutions are likely to come undone.