When they were first taught, the tolerance, love, peace, and patience of the teachings of Jesus were beautiful and revolutionary.
Today they are still beautiful. It is a damning indictment of Christianity that they are also still revolutionary.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Ten Commandments
More than one person in the United States seems to be of the opinion that American laws are based on the ten commandments. Displays of the ten commandments in public buildings have been installed and defended on this basis, even by state supreme court justices.
Given the dominance of Christian beliefs in the United States today, and since the country's establishment, it is hard to argue against Christian beliefs - including the ten commandments - being part of American culture. But are American laws based on them? How can we tell? Do we know the motivations of all those who have proposed and voted for laws in the US? Not really. Given the fact that a professed belief in Christianity is virtually required for election to any office in the US, even those who publicly profess Christianity may not actually support Christian principles, even if there was an agreement on what Christian principles actually are.
But perhaps we can apply a little of the scientific method to the problem - the ten commandments are at least limited (although there are, admittedly, two versions in the bible). So if American law is based on the ten commandments, then we should see the ten commandments reflected in American law, right? In a multicultural society, and one that respects individual rights, they may not be strictly and universally applied, but if American law is based on the ten commandments (rather than the admonishments of other religions, or an enlightenment vision of natural law), then we should at least find a majority of the ten commandments enforced in law.
This is only a hypothesis, but let us say, for the sake of argument, that if more than half of the ten commandments are found enforced in US law, then we can consider the hypothesis supported. If not, then we will conclude that the hypothesis is not supported - we will conclude that US law is not based on the ten commandments. Again, for the sake of argument, we will use the Authorized, King James version of the bible - the one most commonly used at the time that the United States was created, and the constitution written. It may not be the best translation (there are definitely inaccuracies), but it would have been the version most commonly referenced at the time, and indeed until relatively recently. The ten commandments, in their first appearance in the bible, are contained in Exodus 20: 3-17.
One by one, let's see how they stand up:
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
The first line of the first amendment to the constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." In other words, the right to have any god or gods is protected under the constitution - the exact opposite of the first commandment.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, of that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Again, the first amendment protects the right to worship anyone or anything. The first amendment also states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..." This also means that making graven images - artistic free speech - is a constitutionally protected right. The constitution therefore states the exact opposite of the second commandment.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Once more, we need not go past the first amendment. The right to free speech does have some exceptions, but this is not one of them: the right to take the name of God in vain is protected. The constitution states the exact opposite of the third commandment.
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
The first amendment, again, prevents any law being passed that requires anyone to keep a day 'holy'. Even if we were able to determine which day is 'the sabbath' - Christian Sunday, Jewish Saturday, Muslim Friday - nobody is restrained from working on any of them. There are federal holidays (though only Christmas can fall on a Sunday, and even then the 'day off' is moved to the nearest weekday), and some states require that some businesses be closed for one day a week (without specifying which). But nobody is prevented from working, and there is no requirement to be 'holy'. Although not entirely contradicted by the constitution, the fourth commandment is partly contradicted by it, and the rest is not enforced.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Children are not required to 'honor' their parents. Parents have rights over their children, but there are no laws that require children to honor, or even obey their parents. Children are required to obey certain laws (school attendance, for example) that parents are expected to enforce, but it is the law that is being obeyed, not the parents per se. Furthermore, children are not required to obey everything their parents tell them to do, particularly if it is against the law; and parents do have obligations to care for their children, protect and provide for them, and treat them according to certain levels of care and respect. If anything, parents are required to honor their children, rather than the other way around. If that isn't enough, once a child reaches the age of majority, the constitution once again has something to say: "the right of people to peaceably assemble" is protected, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include a right of free association - we can associate with whomever we like, whenever we like, or not as we choose. Once a child has reached the age of majority, he or she has the constitutional right to never acknowledge his or her parents again, let alone 'honor' them.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
We must be on firmer ground here, right? Murder is illegal (although it is prohibited under virtually every religion, is considered prohibited by natural law, and even evolutionary theory explains that not killing members of one's own society is an adaptive trait). However, killing in war is legal, killing in self-defense is legal, killing (in some states) to protect property is legal, and killing by the state, in the form of execution, is legal (though not practiced by all states). Killing by a police officer is, in some cases, legal, even if not in self-defense. In some states a police officer can kill a suspect for attempting to take his or her weapon, or simply for trying to escape arrest. The commandment is pretty clear and emphatic, but the law is much more complex. People have carved out numerous exceptions, and the constitution permits execution after due process. So does this mean that the law is at least based on this commandment? Possibly, though it may equally (and some would say more accurately) reflect prohibitions on killing that originate in other philosophies. Perhaps it would be best if we labeled this as a 'maybe'.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Another pretty clear commandment. However, adultery is not against the law. It is true that some states have laws on the books that make adultery a criminal offense, but these are not enforced, and are not enforceable because of the right to freedom of association noted earlier. In the case of adultery, the other party to the marriage contract can apply for the contract to be dissolved, but then that is also an option on the grounds of simple 'irreconcilable differences'. Adultery is not illegal, and even the contractual consequences of adultery can happen quite easily without adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
Once again, a clear commandment, and in this case the legal prohibition on stealing is pretty universal. But there are exceptions - property used in the commission of a crime can be seized, and the government has the power of eminent domain, which allows the taking of property for public use. In both these cases, though, one can argue that they are not stealing - both require due process, the first being part of the punishment for a criminal act, and the second requires the government to pay a fair market value - a forced sale, rather than a theft. This commandment, then, seems pretty well entrenched in American law.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Although this sounds pretty straightforward, a lot depends on the definition of 'false witness'. Perjury is illegal - lying under oath, both in court and in legal documents. Lying to the police is also a criminal offense. But lying in general is not. Lying to, or about, most people is not prohibited. Libel and slander are civil wrongs, and the person libeled or slandered can sue, but they are not criminal offenses. So does 'false witness' mean false-swearing - lying under oath - or does it mean lying in general? The text of the bible is unclear on this, and when one looks at the law, one finds that lying is only illegal when it interferes with the legal process or causes specific harm to another. In other words, it is not lying that is morally wrong, but causing harm and messing with the legal system, in the same sense that failing to fulfill a contract, or destroying evidence are considered wrong. So in law, the prohibition is not on lying, but on causing harm and interfering with justice. The commandment does not say 'do no harm', or 'do not interfere with justice'. Though once again not clear, it appears that this commandment is not reflected in American law, although some of the potential consequences of it do exist coincidentally.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.
Not only is coveting not prohibited in law (although following through and stealing is), coveting is the very cornerstone of capitalism. Wanting what your more successful neighbor has is one of the prime motivators for working and earning your way to the point where you can have what your neighbor has, or at least the equivalent. Coveting someone else's wife is also not illegal, and as long as she is willing neither is having her. Coveting your neighbor's servants is not illegal, and if you can offer better wages you have a decent chance of having them too, and we call it 'market forces'. Freedom of speech, conscience, and opinion are all constitutionally protected, and if your opinions are that you want something that someone else has, then that is your right. Once more, a commandment is actually contradicted by the constitution.
So let's review, shall we? The first four commandments (one God, graven images, name in vain, sabbath day) are all wholly or partially contradicted by the constitution, on religious grounds. The fifth (honoring parents) is not enforced in law, although the opposite (honoring children) is, and after the age of majority one has a constitutional right to dishonor one's parents. Six (killing) is a maybe, seven (adultery) is in part unconstitutional, and either way is not illegal. Eight (stealing) certainly appears to be part of the law. Nine (lying) does not appear to be, although that is not entirely clear. Ten (coveting), definitely is not found enacted in law.
In summary, that is one 'yes', one 'maybe', and eight 'no's. Six of the no's are at least in part because they are contradicted by the constitution. Even at a stretch, it is hard to see how the ten commandments are reflected in American law. In fact, the majority of the commandments cannot be enacted in law on constitutional grounds - it would be more accurate to say that the opposite of the ten commandments is the foundation of American law. From this analysis at least, it would be more correct to say that America is an anti-Christian nation, rather than a Christian one.
Given the dominance of Christian beliefs in the United States today, and since the country's establishment, it is hard to argue against Christian beliefs - including the ten commandments - being part of American culture. But are American laws based on them? How can we tell? Do we know the motivations of all those who have proposed and voted for laws in the US? Not really. Given the fact that a professed belief in Christianity is virtually required for election to any office in the US, even those who publicly profess Christianity may not actually support Christian principles, even if there was an agreement on what Christian principles actually are.
But perhaps we can apply a little of the scientific method to the problem - the ten commandments are at least limited (although there are, admittedly, two versions in the bible). So if American law is based on the ten commandments, then we should see the ten commandments reflected in American law, right? In a multicultural society, and one that respects individual rights, they may not be strictly and universally applied, but if American law is based on the ten commandments (rather than the admonishments of other religions, or an enlightenment vision of natural law), then we should at least find a majority of the ten commandments enforced in law.
This is only a hypothesis, but let us say, for the sake of argument, that if more than half of the ten commandments are found enforced in US law, then we can consider the hypothesis supported. If not, then we will conclude that the hypothesis is not supported - we will conclude that US law is not based on the ten commandments. Again, for the sake of argument, we will use the Authorized, King James version of the bible - the one most commonly used at the time that the United States was created, and the constitution written. It may not be the best translation (there are definitely inaccuracies), but it would have been the version most commonly referenced at the time, and indeed until relatively recently. The ten commandments, in their first appearance in the bible, are contained in Exodus 20: 3-17.
One by one, let's see how they stand up:
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
The first line of the first amendment to the constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." In other words, the right to have any god or gods is protected under the constitution - the exact opposite of the first commandment.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, of that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Again, the first amendment protects the right to worship anyone or anything. The first amendment also states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..." This also means that making graven images - artistic free speech - is a constitutionally protected right. The constitution therefore states the exact opposite of the second commandment.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Once more, we need not go past the first amendment. The right to free speech does have some exceptions, but this is not one of them: the right to take the name of God in vain is protected. The constitution states the exact opposite of the third commandment.
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
The first amendment, again, prevents any law being passed that requires anyone to keep a day 'holy'. Even if we were able to determine which day is 'the sabbath' - Christian Sunday, Jewish Saturday, Muslim Friday - nobody is restrained from working on any of them. There are federal holidays (though only Christmas can fall on a Sunday, and even then the 'day off' is moved to the nearest weekday), and some states require that some businesses be closed for one day a week (without specifying which). But nobody is prevented from working, and there is no requirement to be 'holy'. Although not entirely contradicted by the constitution, the fourth commandment is partly contradicted by it, and the rest is not enforced.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Children are not required to 'honor' their parents. Parents have rights over their children, but there are no laws that require children to honor, or even obey their parents. Children are required to obey certain laws (school attendance, for example) that parents are expected to enforce, but it is the law that is being obeyed, not the parents per se. Furthermore, children are not required to obey everything their parents tell them to do, particularly if it is against the law; and parents do have obligations to care for their children, protect and provide for them, and treat them according to certain levels of care and respect. If anything, parents are required to honor their children, rather than the other way around. If that isn't enough, once a child reaches the age of majority, the constitution once again has something to say: "the right of people to peaceably assemble" is protected, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include a right of free association - we can associate with whomever we like, whenever we like, or not as we choose. Once a child has reached the age of majority, he or she has the constitutional right to never acknowledge his or her parents again, let alone 'honor' them.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
We must be on firmer ground here, right? Murder is illegal (although it is prohibited under virtually every religion, is considered prohibited by natural law, and even evolutionary theory explains that not killing members of one's own society is an adaptive trait). However, killing in war is legal, killing in self-defense is legal, killing (in some states) to protect property is legal, and killing by the state, in the form of execution, is legal (though not practiced by all states). Killing by a police officer is, in some cases, legal, even if not in self-defense. In some states a police officer can kill a suspect for attempting to take his or her weapon, or simply for trying to escape arrest. The commandment is pretty clear and emphatic, but the law is much more complex. People have carved out numerous exceptions, and the constitution permits execution after due process. So does this mean that the law is at least based on this commandment? Possibly, though it may equally (and some would say more accurately) reflect prohibitions on killing that originate in other philosophies. Perhaps it would be best if we labeled this as a 'maybe'.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Another pretty clear commandment. However, adultery is not against the law. It is true that some states have laws on the books that make adultery a criminal offense, but these are not enforced, and are not enforceable because of the right to freedom of association noted earlier. In the case of adultery, the other party to the marriage contract can apply for the contract to be dissolved, but then that is also an option on the grounds of simple 'irreconcilable differences'. Adultery is not illegal, and even the contractual consequences of adultery can happen quite easily without adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
Once again, a clear commandment, and in this case the legal prohibition on stealing is pretty universal. But there are exceptions - property used in the commission of a crime can be seized, and the government has the power of eminent domain, which allows the taking of property for public use. In both these cases, though, one can argue that they are not stealing - both require due process, the first being part of the punishment for a criminal act, and the second requires the government to pay a fair market value - a forced sale, rather than a theft. This commandment, then, seems pretty well entrenched in American law.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Although this sounds pretty straightforward, a lot depends on the definition of 'false witness'. Perjury is illegal - lying under oath, both in court and in legal documents. Lying to the police is also a criminal offense. But lying in general is not. Lying to, or about, most people is not prohibited. Libel and slander are civil wrongs, and the person libeled or slandered can sue, but they are not criminal offenses. So does 'false witness' mean false-swearing - lying under oath - or does it mean lying in general? The text of the bible is unclear on this, and when one looks at the law, one finds that lying is only illegal when it interferes with the legal process or causes specific harm to another. In other words, it is not lying that is morally wrong, but causing harm and messing with the legal system, in the same sense that failing to fulfill a contract, or destroying evidence are considered wrong. So in law, the prohibition is not on lying, but on causing harm and interfering with justice. The commandment does not say 'do no harm', or 'do not interfere with justice'. Though once again not clear, it appears that this commandment is not reflected in American law, although some of the potential consequences of it do exist coincidentally.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.
Not only is coveting not prohibited in law (although following through and stealing is), coveting is the very cornerstone of capitalism. Wanting what your more successful neighbor has is one of the prime motivators for working and earning your way to the point where you can have what your neighbor has, or at least the equivalent. Coveting someone else's wife is also not illegal, and as long as she is willing neither is having her. Coveting your neighbor's servants is not illegal, and if you can offer better wages you have a decent chance of having them too, and we call it 'market forces'. Freedom of speech, conscience, and opinion are all constitutionally protected, and if your opinions are that you want something that someone else has, then that is your right. Once more, a commandment is actually contradicted by the constitution.
So let's review, shall we? The first four commandments (one God, graven images, name in vain, sabbath day) are all wholly or partially contradicted by the constitution, on religious grounds. The fifth (honoring parents) is not enforced in law, although the opposite (honoring children) is, and after the age of majority one has a constitutional right to dishonor one's parents. Six (killing) is a maybe, seven (adultery) is in part unconstitutional, and either way is not illegal. Eight (stealing) certainly appears to be part of the law. Nine (lying) does not appear to be, although that is not entirely clear. Ten (coveting), definitely is not found enacted in law.
In summary, that is one 'yes', one 'maybe', and eight 'no's. Six of the no's are at least in part because they are contradicted by the constitution. Even at a stretch, it is hard to see how the ten commandments are reflected in American law. In fact, the majority of the commandments cannot be enacted in law on constitutional grounds - it would be more accurate to say that the opposite of the ten commandments is the foundation of American law. From this analysis at least, it would be more correct to say that America is an anti-Christian nation, rather than a Christian one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)