Attribution to: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/10c.html
After a discussion [worthy of consideration] about "Which Ten Commandments"?, he considers, largely from the standpoint of secular use of them, a logical discussion of the salient [or not] points contained in those 10 that are typically listed as the protestant version of them.
This essayist' consideration to these 'commandments' one by one:
First Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3)
Those who say it does not violate the separation of church and state to post the Ten Commandments in public buildings clearly have never read the Ten Commandments. Thefirst one explicitly commands us to worship the Judeo-Christian deity and no one and nothing else; for the government to endorse this message by displaying it in classrooms or courthouses would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment. How can this not be considered an establishment of religion?
This sort of intolerance stands in direct opposition to the principles of freedom of conscience and religious liberty upon which America was founded. Not only that, it speaks poorly of whatever deity or belief system would enshrine it as a high principle. Why, an atheist might ask, does God care about this? Why is he so concerned that he get all the credit? Why does it anger him so much when people worship things other than him? For a benevolent creator, would it not be enough that people admire the beauty and the grandeur of his creation, even if they call him by a different name when they praise him?
It strains credulity to believe that the infinite creator of the cosmos would be so petty, so small-minded. Far more likely is that this set of laws reflects not the wishes of a divine being, but the beliefs of the culture that created them, a culture which believed in a cruel and jealous god that mirrored the primitive state of their own moral development. The Ten Commandments themselves give evidence of their thoroughly human origin.
Second Commandment: "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, or 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 shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6)
The second commandment is essentially a continuation of the first one. However, in its prohibition against making representations of "any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth", it further shows how Western democracy is not built on the Ten Commandments. To the contrary, the Ten Commandments are fundamentally opposed to the individual rights that form the basis of all modern democratic societies. While the first commandment is against religious freedom, this one is also against freedom of expression. Michaelangelo's David, the Mona Lisa, even the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel - all the famous works of art that have become iconic to our society would not exist if the second commandment had been universally obeyed.
This commandment also says much about the personality of the biblical god. In the space of one verse, he identifies himself as jealous - a quality generally agreed to be negative among human beings, though he seems almost proud of it - and proclaims that he punishes people for the crimes of others. Are these characteristics of a good and moral being? Is this justice?
Third Commandment: "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." (Exodus 20:7)
Continuing with the religious commandments, this one contradicts yet another of the inalienable rights granted to the citizens of progressive nations - this time, the freedom of speech. For God to threaten punishment for those who use his name in vain (i.e., in ways he decides it should not be used) would be like the U.S. Congress passing a law that made it illegal to speak badly of the government. This commandment is not in accord with the principles of democracy; like many of the others, it is against them.
Fourth Commandment: "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: 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." (Exodus 20:8-11)
Like the first three, the fourth commandment has no secular intent whatsoever. It is, instead, a rule about how a specific god is to be worshipped within the context of a specific religion. It would be an obvious establishment of religion, and a glaring violation of separation of church and state, for the government to enforce this commandment by law or display it on public property in a way that conveys endorsement. Furthermore, this commandment contradicts the principles of capitalism and the free market that America and the other First World nations so faithfully abide by in other areas. Why shouldn't people be able to work whenever they choose?
Fifth Commandment: "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)
After four commandments that are purely religious in nature and intent, serving no purpose other than dictating how to worship a specific god, we finally come across the first one that has anything to say about matters of secular behavior. However, while this one is generally a good idea, it is too broad and too vague to be a law. Should we honor neglectful or abusive parents? Should we honor parents who aren't prepared for the responsibility of parenthood and do a poor job raising their children? Should we honor parents whose religious beliefs cause them to beat their children, deny them an education or withhold needed medical treatment from them?
Loving, caring, competent parents certainly deserve to be honored. But no one automatically becomes worthy of respect merely by having a child. Being a parent is a great responsibility, and respect comes from living up to that obligation. As one of the Ten Commandments, this one could be improved upon, or replaced entirely. How about "Honor your children"?
Sixth Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13)
Some theists say Western society's laws are based on the Ten Commandments, but the sixth one is the very first that could even possibly be taken as substantiation of that claim. It is a good general principle, although it strains credulity for anyone to claim this is evidence of divine origin. Human beings figured out that it was wrong to kill each other independently in many cultures throughout history without the Bible; this idea can be justified on purely human grounds, and we need no divine revelation to see why it is a good idea.
But the problem is this. As a general principle to live by, this isn't bad, but as a law such a brief dictate cannot stand on its own. It needs elaboration. Does this mean we're not allowed to kill animals and plants for food? Does this mean we're not allowed to kill in self-defense? What about abortion, euthanasia or capital punishment?
If this law is to be understood, as the plain meaning would seem to indicate, as a blanket order forbidding all killing, then the Bible clearly breaks its own rule numerous times. The Old Testament prescribes death as the penalty for even the most trivial offenses - blasphemy, disobedience in children, picking up sticks on the Sabbath - and more notably, God himself orders the Israelites to wage war on their enemies on many occasions, often explicitly instructing them to wipe out foreign tribes to the last man, woman and child, a crime which today we would call genocide. If such actions do not fall within the boundaries of the Sixth Commandment, then what actions can it be understood to forbid?
Seventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14)
The claim that Western society is built on the Ten Commandments grows increasingly farfetched. How many countries prosecute adultery as a criminal offense today?
Whatever one might say about adultery as a violation of marital vows, a cruel and selfish betrayal of someone who loves you, or unfair to one's family - and one can say all these things - it is still a consensual act between two adults. Given that the Ten Commandments are supposedly the most important list of laws ever codified, it seems as if there would be other things more deserving of inclusion. Why not a prohibition on the much more serious crimes of rape or child sexual abuse instead?
The Bible's stance on both of the above is also worth examining. According to Deuteronomy 22:28-29, if a man rapes a woman who is not betrothed, the only repercussion is that he must marry his victim. (The woman is apparently not given a choice in the matter.) In some circumstances, when a rape is committed the woman faces punishment. The situation for pedophilia is even worse. While chapters such as Leviticus 20 give long lists of sex-related crimes, prohibiting sex with in-laws, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, sex with a menstruating woman, and so on, nowhere - not once - does the Bible ever set a minimum age of consent; nowhere does it ever say that sexually molesting children is wrong. This seems like a serious omission, to put it mildly.
Eighth Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal." (Exodus 20:15)
Stealing in almost all cases is indeed wrong. I will therefore only note that in several instances (Exodus 3:22, Exodus 12:35-36, Ezekiel 39:10; Luke 19:30-34), the Bible approves of the faithful stealing from and plundering others.
Ninth Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." (Exodus 20:16)
A commandment against lying is, in general, a good moral principle. But like the commandments against stealing and killing, this one is too absolute and not detailed enough to be a law governing behavior. What if one can prevent a greater crime by lying - such as the Germans during World War II who hid Jewish families from the Nazis, or Rahab the harlot who did something similar with Joshua's spies in Jericho? Or, more simply, is it right to lie in situations where the truth would needlessly hurt a person's feelings?
And again, few if any Western nations have laws forbidding lying (except in certain restricted circumstances, such as perjury). However wise such a principle might be, democracy is not built on it.
Tenth Commandment: "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 neighbor's." (Exodus 20:17)
The final commandment seems redundant. Do we really need commandments against stealing and coveting? Doesn't having one make the other unnecessary? Furthermore, it seems as if it would be impossible to obey this one even if you wanted to. The others prohibit actions, but this one apparently forbids a state of mind. A person chooses to steal, but does anyone really choose to covet? Wouldn't prohibiting this be like, as the saying goes, trying not to think of a white elephant?
Additionally, this commandment further illustrates the point that Western society is not based on the Ten Commandments. In fact, the free-enterprise economy that America and other nations run on is fundamentally dependent on coveting - it is what inspires them to work hard, to make money and to succeed. If people didn't covet, capitalism wouldn't work.
As a final aside, it is revealing what this commandment says about the mindset of the authors of the Bible. Within the space of one rule, it shows that they had no problem with slavery (the Hebrew words here translated as "manservant" and "maidservant" carry that connotation) and saw wives as the property of their husbands. Wives are included along with slaves and cattle on the list of things "that [are] thy neighbor's"!
Please comment on this perspective.
Jeff