The Ten Commandments: So Many Questions

The 10 Commandments: A Number of Questions

(editing will be complete in 24 hr)

In a moment of insight, Moses, a Jewish prophet, divined the 10 commandments - which were set forth as "The Laws of Life." In the sentiments of most people these laws seem to be religious in nature, and for that reason, in a secular society - they are not displayed in public places. The presumption is- a display is a violation of separation of Church and State. The Commandments are seen as a denominational expression - in a non denominational political environment. But “who” is invoking the Constitution here: The religious Jews or Muslims, Buddhists?

I think not.

These laws though, seem fairly generic inasmuch as they have a universality about them which makes rabid objections suspicious. In a society with increased social pathology when compared to thirty years ago, there appears to be less and less in the way of moral direction and more and more of a public display of moral ambivalence. And relativism. These seem to be consequences related to prevalence of humanism and in particular multiculturalism.

Sometimes I wish there was Constitutional protection against the public display of fashionable ideologies. As a prevalence of same, has more influence than any moral codes that have a tradition, and this influence is coming from the media, educational systems, and other information in the public square.
And behind it all, are socialists, dialetical materialists, and the extreme left wing.

School children are not provided any definite rules by which to govern themselves beyond the rules of arithmetic, class expectations and peer group relationships. They are indoctrinatied into moral uncertainty very early in their educational careers. But what is the long range effect?

Children, if they need one thing, it is certainty and rules. Do we disagree? Teaching that one idea is as good as the next doesn't contribute to their development. And it negates all certainty. It is like saying, one and one is two, in some cultures, but may not be in others. But let's operate on the "assumption" that is true, and go from there. It simply says that no idea is meaningful, and no idea is true. And yet.the need for certainty is just a property of the nervous system of children. They want to know what they can believe - with certainty. Certainty, Reality, Truth, Universality, God - these things have growth promoting, health promoting effects. The brain grows on truth. A common sense of what is real and what is unreal is derived from certainty.
Although there may be some ambivalence within each catagory that I've cited here, and variations from culture to culture - certainty, absolutes, have proved biological value. .

So why is a display of fairly universal moral codes equivalent to the sedition of children, simply because there is something absolute about them?

Why is a display of what has been traditionally displayed in public, so offensive?. Where is the harm? Do the children invoke the Constitution because they are offended? Or is someone speaking for them?

We seem to always get updates from the far left as to what the next offense is...perhaps they can enlighten us. As the kinds of offensives they cite, are as harmful to the general good, as the public display of a nativity scene on Lexington Green. (No longer displayed there at Christmas secondary to a vociferous offended minority...) This is no harm at all. As they are free to prop up their symbols if they want. Except they don't seem to have any.

We need to be educated constantly by the far left as to the next slight to some minority group. Soon -I fear - we'll all be walking on eggshells to avoid offending someone..infected with a terminal case moral paralysis. The evidence of that trend is all around us - already Institutionalized, since the Clinton administration as Politcal Correctness, in the American subconcious. (Similar "correctness" is present in Maosism, Stalanism: Transgressions in this politcal environment, led to imprisonment and death. A Note here: The notion that such things could not happen again is a fallacy, we need to be always mindful of the potential. When the state presides over the individual, and chic values supplant time tested ones, and when political ideas, supercede religious ideas, this danger is ever present.)

It is it the far left and the
'chronically offended,'
who disparage all certainty in ideas. These are the people who are most most vocal? Who are they, and on what grounds do they object?
Are they making sense?
Ironic - since their maxims seem invoke the certainty of uncertainty and relativism. A fallacy - as in:.
"There is no Absolute Truth. To which, we might legitimately respond: "Are you certain?" If not, why not follow along with ideas that are time tested. What is so offensive about the law "Thou Shalt Not Kill?" Isn't it a good idea?

And yet as with the 10 commandments, and traditional religious displays, there is something intuitive about them that the majority rarely objects to....so,

Is a public display of the commandments a public display of religious preference, say Christianity? Would the children moving from one class to the next - in school - be traumatized by these moral precepts? Or would the objections come from another source?

Can we ask the children?

Let's consider a "Social Experiment" and then ask the children themselves
To pander to the social engineers, let's set up an experiment...let's test our intuitions. :
If we agree that there is no harm done in terms of how Children might be guided by these rules -that they might profit from them, why not post the Commandants in schools for awhile? Why not poll the children afterward, as their effect? We might also monitor for positive or negative behavioral effects longer term.

There's a thought experiment: Imagine posting the 10 Commandments in a common area of the schools with a brief explanation. Then we could interview the kids a few years later for their opinions as to whether they were harmed or not. Don't talk and argue, test. Have they benefited or not. Have they been harmed? Or did they simply pass by these laws everyday without giving them a second thought.

Perish the notion they should absorb these rules subconsciously and be guided by them.

“Thou shalt not bare false witness against thy neighbor” might take root. But if it did, would it be bad?
No. Do we agree?
But without exposure to this rule, it might not take root anywhere. ( I assume the public school teachers would be willing to offer a little clarity to the students insasmuch how they came about, what they mean, as is in:
"false witness" means not saying something that is fase about someone? There might even be some illuminations as to the source. Where is the harm?. But leave it there, lest we be accused of Indoctrination. But don't leave it as a thought experiment, do it...and do it at the community level. You may want to count the number of offended inviduals as to thier percentage when compared to the number who are not offended.)

In the 1950''s a rather generic prayer was said in school at the start of the day, there is no record of any child being psychically harmed. Most -in fact- would say it helped. I'd wager. But those prayers were removed based on a constitutional case made by a single atheist who has since recanted. .

Now though. we get the impression that passive guidance by time tested moral rules in schools would be seditious ... but is it more of an affront to the common sense than mandatory sex ed classes are for fifth graders? Why is this being done? Is exposure to moral rules, being substituted by "humanist ideas," being introduced into school curriculum's such a s "feminism,"
" cultural sensitivity" or politics - indeed - the latest example: having children drop everything to listen to Obama's next speech designed to influence opinions on NHC.

I don't think many doubt that the public school system has a political bias. Not surprising, since in the 1950's William F. Buckley wrote a book criticizing left leaning academics at Yale. who openly discouraged religious expression in students, in a school that had a religious history. The book was called: Of God and Man at Yale. But would academics argue that the ten commandment were subversive to the constitution, or to political correctness – or both?

Why is the rule "thou shalt not steal?" a rule that is exclusively religious or denominational in nature? Is it because of the word "thou?" Or is it the impliied idea of divine inspiration that offends?

Isn't the idea more important an a practical sense than the source?


Is the hint that divine intelligence might exist a grand offense? To whom? A minority or a majority?

Well let me state a fact. Ninety five percent of Americans believe in God. So how is it an expression of democracy that prohibitive action should be taken if these laws are displayed in public? It seems the majority should be offended by their exclusion, and the minority should respect the will of the majority in a democracy. And if there is a legal issue the majority should be as constitutionally armed and be just as vociferously the "offended"..Taking offense should not be limited to the far left. Maybe moderate and the right leaning should be more vocal as to how they are offended, as social engineers are disregarding, and eroding, and attacking religious ideas. They want to remove "In God We Trust" from coins, let's remember. Too often it is only the far right that is vocal to contradict them but where is the silent majority now?

Why is a display of the 10 commandments in a court building a constitutional offense, when the English Common law is derived from them? Why couldn't the first amendment be invoked as a constitutional protection motivated by deference to the history of law, and the traditions of law and American civics?

But pandering to the minority that does not see the significance and value in these rules, or their roots in tradition... and the even smaller minority among them that would be up in arms about their public display - makes very little sense. The majority are too passive. Less sense is made .when benefits and burdens are considered, put simply: the majority who think traditions should be honored, should be prepared consider counteracting the erosions of religious and moral beliesf with disciplined debate and politcal action – if necessary. .


But if the problem is the Constitution, Why isn't the sentiment of the majority protected by the first Amendment - which could be invoked by a majority in any community or state as a protection - backed way of referendum results. As an example, when the offended object to a religious or moral display simply tell them to litigate. And let them be offended in the interim and do not cave.

Now we move to common sense:


Why is the national enquirer, or the average TV show, the latest violent or sex based movie less offensive? And, among the choices - which is moral rules or immoral media or “Junk in?”


When programming a computer the maxim is: Junk in - Junk out. Isn't it true that we are at no loss in this culture for input that could be described as “Junk in”...and if we are agreed, how do the commandments compare for input value?


How is it that political ideologies that are non traditonal and seem to us old enough to appreciate how things were, gain ascendency, when their primary intellectual arguments consist of tenets such these: "We are all evolved animals, people are neither good nor evil,"

"There is no such thing as absolute truth" ( an idea they express with certainty.) It is these ideas and how they result in indoctrination in schools that concern me most.


Regardless of the source what is so offensive about the following:


1. thou shalt not kill

2. thou shalt not covet

3. thou shalt not commit adultery.

4. Honor thy father and thy mother


Five of the laws are set out here. If these laws lack sense, and there is a choice to believe or not believe the laws came from God himself, what could be the secular argument for not displaying just these five rules the public square?  Is it because the other laws say "thou shalt not put false god's before me" or “keep holy the Lords Day” Therefore, then,. the whole set should be dismissed?. Why not display only the more not discript rules, the ones that have social value if followed.  Is it possible that if these are put forward as absolutes they could have social value?


I asked my son, what is it of these 10 laws that should offend a Jew, or Buddhist. or Hindu

He said: “ Well. The Jews believe there are more than 10, many of which are spelled out in the Torah - and so - displaying only 10, is showing religious preference: Christian.”

And so I asked: “Do you really believe Jews are offended by displaying only 10....what could be the objection to displaying some rules”

“It's the secular Jews”

“But do they represent a majority of Jews?”

“No”


But I am not sure he is right that even secular Jews would object, as I suspect, sensible Jews would have no real objection to broadcasting rules that have ethical and legal value. .


. And we presume the rules represent a majority of Jews among the whole group including Reform, or Conservative.... So what group is offended?.


The fact is: it is the materialists of all ethnic backgrounds who object. And even among those, it would only be the neurotically political and radically political who would be offended. And who cares if they are offended. What is so important about avoiding offense? Why does avoiding “offense” to feelings take priority over all things. Life is full offenses and disappointments. But I believe most Americans are offended by having to cater to a minority opinion in matters like this.

And so I will ask more questions:

What would be essentially wrong with posting five of the 10 commandments? The best ones. The most important ones. Indeed - what would be wrong with posting all 10, to honor a tradition, and to show deference to the beliefs of most Americans - present and past? Let the atheists take comfort in the origins of common law, and be discomforted by the reality: We don't live in a completely secular society. And they are outnumbered. In fact taking agnosticism into account it would not surprise me if they represent 1 percent of the country or less. Life is full of discomforts, escpecially if the believer must suffer so as not to offend them.

In conclusion - I have never heard sensible answers to such questions, and so I am obliqued to risk offense by rasing them. here in this essay. And here (beliow)I will add the potentially offensive material in full::

.

The 10 Commandments


“Thou shalt have no other gods before me” ( Exodus 20:3 ).

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” ( Exodus 20:4 ).

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” ( Exodus 20:7 ).

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” ( Exodus 20:8 ).

“ Honour thy father and thy mother” ( Exodus 20:12 ).

“Thou shalt not kill” ( Exodus 20:13 ).

“ Thou shalt not commit adultery” ( Exodus 20:14 ).

Thou shalt not steal” ( Exodus 20:15 ).

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” ( Exodus 20:16 ).

“Thou shalt not covet” ( Exodus 20:17 ).



As for the belief in God. We are a majority. It is a decsion: to believe in a Creator.  But, what is the alternative. William Buckley suggested it was, to believe that the arrangments of ths stars, or the 10 Commandments, for that matter are. " Felicitous Conjuries of Nature"

The options are:

To believe you are a risen ape, or a fallen angel, is  your choice. Take your pick. Most have made their choice to believe in Intelligent design.. And we are offended, especially since the rules cited here seem to have value = regardless of which choice is made.

The objection to these rules is therefore suspicious and undermining, and has no intellectual foundation that could survive a reasoned debate.

***

(c) Gary Stone Toylanders Press International

www.thetoylanderstpi.com