Taking Out the Ten Commandments

A long, long time ago, in 2001, back when I watched cable news incessantly, there was a flurry of stories about schools or local governments getting sued for posting the Decalogue. The interviews mostly followed the same script, with the secular opponent claiming a violation of church and state, and the religious proponent making the fantastical claim that Judeo-Christian ethics generally, and the Ten Commandments specifically, are the basis of the legal system of the United States.  Not once did I see this blatant falsity questioned by any moderator.  Instead, both the reporters and secularists would nod their heads and repeat their talking points about progress and separation of church and state as if nothing preposterous had been said at all.

This produced a rare spasm of motivation to write, back then, and I produced a rather flippant little paper critiquing the Ten Commandments and arguing that they have nothing at all to do with American jurisprudence. While wondering what to write about for my next blog post, I considered my old essay, as it was well received among the few friends that saw it, but last I heard this was settled law; the courts consistently ordered the removal of religious signs and monuments in public buildings. The paper seemed anachronistic, attacking out of the blue when the Ten Commandments weren’t in the airspace of the media-driven collective conversation. Nor did I think that they would be, but history does seem to repeat itself, and I was surprised to read of this and then this on The Wild Hunt. It seems that a city council composed of Christians has forgotten the rules about monuments and gotten itself sued, this time by Wiccans, which gives the story a good newsworthy spin.

Since giving up TV a few years ago, and weaning myself from internet TV and most “news” since, I’ve become increasingly and blissfully unaware of pop culture and consumer trends, the absurd blunders of celebrities/politicians, distant weather systems and natural disasters, and all the other miasma that has no measurable effect on my life, and hence should have none upon my mind. So I haven’t seen any of the reported mainstream media coverage of the story this time around, but I suspect it’s similar to last time (but now improved with witches!). The article in The Wild Hunt mentions that there was “a great deal of talk about the Ten Commandments being the foundation of law in the US” during the unveiling of the monument, but gives no further comment.

So I decided to update and revise my original essay to explore the subject more thoroughly, although in the process I realized that my original thesis was overstated; a couple of the Commandments have been the source of certain laws, but not the ones against killing and stealing that readily get cited in debates as evidence for the legal relevance of the whole set. No, it’s the injunctions against working on the Sabbath and adultery that have inspired onerous laws designed to enforce Christian cultural norms and continue the long-standing tradition of conversion tactics imposed by force of law. So while the Ten Commandments have had some influence, it is still the case that they never were among the foundations of US law.

Having sat on this essay for a couple months now and thinking I’d again missed the window of opportunity in the news cycle, I was not going to publish it, but given the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Town of Greece vs. Galloway (pdf) wherein the Catholic majority declared explicitly Christian prayer before government meetings open to the public to be okay, it seems worthy once again to post it. Although it does not address the issue of government sponsored prayer, the tangential belief in the Judeo-Christian basis for the United States, seemingly now endorsed by the highest court in the land, deserves harsh critique. Therefore, I intend to show that not only are the Ten Commandments not the basis of US law, but they are not very good as a moral code for modern people in the first place.

Let’s examine each of the Commandments in greater detail.

1.       Thou shalt have no other gods before me. - Exodus 20:3

So with the very first of the Ten Commandments, the god of the Jews, having brought them out of Egypt (Ex. 20:2), tells them that he is the most important god for them.  He doesn’t say that he’s the god of everyone; only the Israelites are being addressed. Some sorts of Christian have accepted a type of idea of reference that encourages them to believe the words in the Bible are really their universal god writing directly to them, and also to everyone else. While the story suggests a localized tribal god, Christians generalize this to a god of the entire world and all humanity. Curiously, Yahweh doesn’t say that they can’t have other gods, just none before him. He’s jealous, you see, which one would think would make jealousy a virtue, but wait for the last commandment for the irony. However one chooses to interpret it, the first Commandment is clearly a religious statement and entirely unconstitutional by the First Amendment if one tried to make it a law.

2.       Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. – Exodus 20:4

While it seems like a general prohibition against art (the Muslim version is taken as such, which is why Islamic art consists mostly of geometric designs), the god of Moses seems primarily concerned about the worship of images, as is clear from the next two verses where Yahweh threatens the great-grandchildren of his enemies.  This is therefore another religious command that would be unconstitutional if it were law. The banning of iconography and statuary severely limits the opportunity for polytheistic experience by not providing anchors for the gods to manifest in dreams or hallucinations. And of course, the vast majority of Christian denominations simply ignore this commandment.

3.       Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. – Exodus 20:7

With this command, Moses’ god ensures that his name is considered holy and unspeakable.  This ploy worked so well that no one can now know with any certainty the correct pronunciation of YHVH.  I have a strong suspicion that the true pronunciation of YHVH is “Yee-hah-woh”, derived from the ancient Greek transcription of YHVH as IAO in the Hermetic writings; since Greek lacks the consonants of the Tetragrammaton, and Hebrew lacks vowels, it is a simple matter to put the two together. Now that you know a plausible pronunciation, you can try to take it vain, assuming it’s your god. Make sure to use the proper name though, censored spellings like “G-d” miss the point, and exclamations like “god damn these commandments” don’t count because the word “god” denotes a species of spiritual being, not the name of one of them. In any case, this is again a religious dictate.  I’m fairly sure that taking any name you want in vain is protected by the First Amendment.

4.       Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, 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 cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: – Exodus 20:8-10

The Sabbath day is Saturday.  Sunday, as the Lord’s Day, was adopted as the holy day for some Christians in distinction from the Jewish Sabbath. The Catholics even brag about their power to change one of the commandments, as evidence of their power generally. Those Christians who avoid work on Sunday, but not Saturday would seem to be in violation of this commandment, for “sabbath” does not mean any weekly day of rest, but Saturday only, as “shabbetai” means “Saturn”. Yet, Sunday is the first day of the week, a day for beginning new works, not resting as is appropriate to Saturn. But the etymology of “Sabbath” has become forgotten, and only the meaning of simply ‘day of rest’ or just ‘holiday’ remains. Even the Wiccans ended up calling their 8 seasonal holidays “sabbats”.

Although this commandment is obviously of a religious nature, it has been the source of so-called blue laws, mostly mandating stores to be closed on Sundays as per Christian custom. Going back to colonial days, these laws have been gradually going away as secularism and consumerism gain cultural currency. Christians, recognizing the continuing loss of their virtual theocracy once held through a tyranny of the majority, frame the growing enforcement of separation of church and state as a persecution of their traditional values. Yet, the courts have supported Sunday closure laws, arguing, in the face of all evidence, that they have historical precedent, and so have become secularized. You know, like Christmas. Despite most governments yielding to consumer pressure for the right to shop on Sundays, a few states, counties, and cities continue to enforce closures and ban the sale of certain items, particularly alcohol, on Sundays. In at least one town, stores are closed by unofficial agreement and mowing one’s lawn on a Sunday can have negative social consequences. Of course, this is lenient compared to Yahweh’s choice of punishment: “Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.” (Exodus 31:14).

It seems likely that taking regular time off from work both for mental and physical rest contributes toward good health, and most people naturally do so daily, weekly, and at larger intervals with vacations. Demanding that everyone take the same day of the week off and imposing the rule as a law seems extreme. Different people will function better with different schedules, and there is no reason to think there is anything special about resting one day per week versus a day every 9 days, or an hour of meditation every day. I’m of the opinion that government should not be turning uncertain health advice into law, especially if that advice has sectarian religious origins.

5.       Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. – Exodus 20:12

This would be common sense back in a world where your parents can legally kill you, but it’s hard to imagine as an enforceable law in modern times. It’s probably not even a good idea in all situations.  Victims of parental abuse should not honor their abusers, but Moses’ god makes no exceptions.  This seems more worthy of an aphorism than an edict from the Most High. As important as family is, wouldn’t the additional instruction to “Honor your children” make it better? Or even a more general commandment like, “Respect other people”?  So far, the First Amendment mostly grants the right to disrespect people, so long as it doesn’t cross over into slander, libel, or harassment, although I’m sure there are people who would jump at the chance to criminalize disrespect and hurt feelings generally. The Code of Hammurabi gives us this gem, “If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.” I don’t suppose many people would advocate that now. Of course, the Biblical punishment (Exodus 21:15) is more severe: “And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.” In case anyone thinks striking your parent is an extreme offense requiring the Draconian punishment, we also find this: “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death” (Leviticus 20:9). Then again, there does seem to be a distasteful trend towards criminalizing childhood rebelliousness. How many parents today wouldn’t mind seeing their kid in handcuffs for talking back?

6.       Thou shalt not kill. – Exodus 20:13

Eventually, by the second half of the list, Yahweh tells the Israelites something recognizable as a common law.  It’s important not to generalize the word “kill” since the original Hebrew translates more accurately as “murder”, and there are exceptions for self-defense, executing criminals, and making war (especially against any tribes living in the Promised Land). Even so, some religious adherents following similar rules against taking life go so far as to strain their drinking water to spare the microbes.  Just about every society has a prohibition against murder, so this commandment is not so special to the history of law, much less is it the basis of laws against murder.  Any sensible individual or society will come up with this rule on their own without the need for a god telling them that murder is wrong. Even in Genesis, it’s clear that people know murder is wrong from the story of Cain and Abel, long before Yahweh lays down the law.

7.       Thou shalt not commit adultery. – Exodus 20:14

Adultery was outlawed by most ancient civilizations and is still illegal in some form in almost half of the states in the US. Definitions and punishments vary wildly from place to place and across time. Most ancient definitions only considered the marital status of the woman, as marriage was primarily about property rights and ensuring the man’s offspring were really his. In modern secular countries, where sexual freedom is considered something like a right, and with many people having trouble reconciling the idea of marriage as an idealistic love bond between souls with its obvious historical roots in contract law, the outlawing of adultery is increasingly seen as outside the proper role of government – legislating morality being fraught with difficulties in a multicultural society.  Modern definitions usually treat all parties equally and range from the more traditional “sex with a married person” to sometimes include all non-marital sex or cohabitation. Even in states that don’t criminalize adultery, it can often be grounds for divorce and considered in the division of property, alimony, and the custody of children. Nevertheless, in modern times we see a trend towards treating adultery as the moral failing of “cheating” rather than the crime of breach of contract.

Among the Hebrews, the punishment for adultery was the death of both parties. “And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10). Punishments now usually consist of fines and sometimes imprisonment, except in many Islamic countries where death by stoning is still commonly practiced. Adultery was also illegal in the pagan Greco-Roman world, with punishments from death to banishment. It seems unlikely that the lawmakers in ancient Greece or Rome were looking to the Torah for inspiration. Nor does adultery suddenly become a sin among the Israelites when Moses comes down from Mt. Sinai with the stone tablets, as can be seen from the stories in Genesis where people seem to know adultery is against the rules. So while adultery is often considered a crime, the Biblical commandment against it is not the source of laws prohibiting it.

8.       Thou shalt not steal. – Exodus 20:15

This is similar to the 6^th Commandment in that it is also a real law, but also in that it is not unique to Judeo-Christian tradition.  It is a common sense necessity for any civilized property owning society. The prescribed punishment for theft is usually restitution, often with extra, and if the thief cannot pay up they are sold into slavery. Of course, stealing and selling a man is a capital offense: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16).

9.       Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. – Exodus 20:16

“Neighbor” here refers to a member of the community, so in this case, that means other Israelites. Proving a case could require two or three witnesses and a false witness would be given the sentence they were trying to have imposed on the defendant.  Like the last four commandments, perjury is normally outlawed irrespective of divine dictates. The Code of Hammurabi contains equivalent injunctions against, and punishments for, providing false witness.

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 any thing that is thy neighbors. – Exodus 20:17

Yahweh doesn’t want the Israelites to desire each other’s property, which seems reasonable enough. Wanting something you can’t have is certainly a problem, but it’s not a crime by modern standards, and hard to understand how it was punished. Thought-crimes, being subjective and unenforceable, never make good law. Perhaps Moses’ god is trying to convey an idea similar to the Buddha’s assertion that desire is the source of sorrow, but a man came up with that independently and more explicitly than did the god of Moses.

So it seems that only five of the Ten Commandments are equivalent to actual laws, three of which (6,8, and 9) are general principles which any normal society could be expected to produce independent of divine intervention. Laws against adultery and shop-keeping on Sunday were probably inspired by their respective commandments, but it would be silly to argue that they are essential to the legal system.  The rest of the commandments are religious commands or regular moral advice with no equivalent in US law and mostly contravened by the First Amendment’s establishment clause. It’s clear that the Ten Commandments are not in any way important to the legal system of the United States, nor are they very influential on the world at large.  Roman law has had a far greater impact on modern law than religious law ever had, and hopefully, ever will. Note that the Wikipedia article on Legal History doesn’t even mention the Ten Commandments.

The question remains as to why politically minded Christians in the United States continue to say that the Ten Commandments are the basis for US law. Assuming that they are not consciously lying in an attempt at propaganda, they may actually believe the revisionist history lately popular with fundamentalist Christians, arguing that the United States is a Christian nation, founded by Christians, and inspired by Judeo-Christian values and Mosaic Law. Evangelicals like this guy, and sects like Dominionism, explicitly aim at turning the US into a theocracy, believing that that was the intent of the founders until liberals mucked up the plan. It’s fairly easy to show that this is wrong; we just have to look at the Constitution and the words of the founding fathers.

“The United States government is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” – President James Madison, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797.

Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists is famous for its last phrase. Here’s the full quote:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only & 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 & State.”

Many of the founding fathers believed in Deism, a sort of jerry-rigged theism attached to a mechanistic worldview, popular among Enlightenment intellectuals before full-blown atheism lost some of its social drawbacks. The god of the Deists creates the world and then has no further involvement, stepping out to let physics run the show. All too familiar with the horrors of religious wars and persecutions in Europe and the colonies, they went out of their way to create a secular constitution that never mentions religion other than to state that there shall be no religious test for any office, and the granting of freedom of religion in the First Amendment.  If the Ten Commandments had inspired the founding fathers, why does the First Amendment specifically forbid any laws that could be based on the first three commandments?

Maybe the Christians who believe that the Decalogue underpins the legal system are thinking more metaphorically, as the Tablets of the Law, graven in stone, and delivered from on high are a powerful symbol of the concept of ‘law’ and the authoritarian law-giver. If that’s the case, then other (arguably better) sets of ethics or laws should be placed side by side for comparison. I’ll accept their claims of neutral historical monuments when I see equivalent monuments listing the Code of Hammurabi and the Negative Confessions of Ma’at. Historically, gods usually don’t issue laws, governance being a rather mundane and non-spiritual concern that’s usually considered the province of humans. Furthermore, most societies have recognized that 'law' is an evolving human concept, needing continual revision, which makes any immutable set of laws rather bizarre. Thus, placing only a god-derived list of laws is an implicit endorsement of religion, and explicitly unconstitutional.

Maybe we should have monuments for the Ten Precepts of Buddhist ethics. Being mainly for monks (especially the last five), and hence more stoic than the Decalogue, they would undoubtedly be more advantageous for the average American. They are:

1.       not to take life

2.       not to lie

3.       not to steal

4.       not to engage in sexual activity

5.       not to drink alcohol

6.       not to take food from noon to the next morning

7.       not to adorn their bodies with anything other than the three robes

8.       not to participate in or be spectator to public entertainments

9.       not to use high or comfortable beds

10.   not to use money

It’s apparently pretty easy for humans, enlightened or not, to come up with better ethical lists than the god of Moses did. Atheists, including Christopher Hitchens, Penn Jillete, and Richard Dawkins, have come up with their own replacements for the Ten Commandments – conveniently collected here. Isn’t it strange how even the Unabomber came up with a set of rules more clear and reasonable than Yahweh did?

Or perhaps the following rules would be better yet to erect monuments for people to live by (except for the second half of #7, that’s just stupid):

1.       Do not give opinion or advice unless you are asked.

2.       Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3.       When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4.       If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5.       Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6.       Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7.       Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8.       Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9.       Do not harm little children.

10.   Do not kill non-human animals unless attacked or for your food.

11.   When walking in open territory, bother no one.  If someone bothers you, ask him to stop.  If he does not stop, destroy him.

-          The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

-          By Anton LaVey

The Satanic Temple is promoting their own monument in answer to an Oklahoma law allowing religious displays on public property and the placement of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the capitol. When Christian zealots try to use the force of law to preach their religion in an open society, they may get more than they bargained for. Even though I disagree with all of these lists of rules, at least in part, inclusivity is a virtue, right?