Posted on 09/05/2003 1:45:10 PM PDT by G. Stolyarov II
In all the discussion about displaying the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse, has anyone asked the fundamental question: what are the Ten Commandments? What is their philosophic meaning and what kind of society do they imply? Religious conservatives claim that the Ten Commandments supplied the moral grounding for the establishment of America. But is that even possible? Let's put aside the historical question of what sources the Founding Fathers, mostly Deists, drew upon. The deeper question is: can a nation of freedom, individualism and the pursuit of happiness be based on the Ten Commandments? Let's look at the commandments. The wording differs among the Catholic, Protestant and Hebrew versions, but the content is the same. The first commandment is: "I am the Lord thy God." As first, it is the fundamental. Its point is the assertion that the individual is not an independent being with a right to live his own life but the vassal of an invisible Lord. It says, in effect, "I own you; you must obey me." Could America be based on this? Is such a servile idea even consistent with what America represents: the land of the free, independent, sovereign individual who exists for his own sake? The question is rhetorical. The second commandment is an elaboration of the above, with material about not serving any other god and not worshipping "graven images" (idols). The Hebrew and Protestant versions threaten heretics with reprisals against their descendants—inherited sin—"visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation . . ." This primitive conception of law and morality flatly contradicts American values. Inherited guilt is an impossible and degrading concept. How can you be guilty for something you didn't do? In philosophic terms, it represents the doctrine of determinism, the idea that your choices count for nothing, that factors beyond your control govern your "destiny." This is the denial of free will and therefore of self-responsibility. The nation of the self-made man cannot be squared with the ugly notion that you are to be punished for the "sin" of your great-grandfather. The numbering differs among the various versions, but the next two or three commandments proscribe taking the Lord's name "in vain" and spending a special day, the Sabbath, in propitiating Him. In sum, the first set of commandments orders you to bow, fawn, grovel and obey. This is impossible to reconcile with the American concept of a self-reliant, self-owning individual. The middle commandment, "Honor thy father and mother," is manifestly unjust. Justice demands that you honor those who deserve honor, who have earned it by their choices and actions. Your particular father and mother may or may not deserve your honor—that is for you to judge on the basis of how they have treated you and of a rational evaluation of their moral character. To demand that Stalin's daughter honor Stalin is not only obscene, but also demonstrates the demand for mindlessness implicit in the first set of commandments. You are commanded not to think or judge, but to jettison your reason and simply obey. The second set of commandments is unobjectionable but is common to virtually every organized society—the commandments against murder, theft, perjury and the like. But what is objectionable is the notion that there is no rational, earthly basis for refraining from criminal behavior, that it is only the not-to-be-questioned decree of a supernatural Punisher that makes acts like theft and murder wrong. The basic philosophy of the Ten Commandments is the polar opposite of the philosophy underlying the American ideal of a free society. Freedom requires: — a metaphysics of the natural, not the supernatural; of free will, not determinism; of the primary reality of the individual, not the tribe or the family; — an epistemology of individual thought, applying strict logic, based on individual perception of reality, not obedience and dogma; — an ethics of rational self-interest, to achieve chosen values, for the purpose of individual happiness on this earth, not fearful, dutiful appeasement of "a jealous God" who issues "commandments." Rather than the Ten Commandments, the actual grounding for American values is that captured by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged: "If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."
As you note, that did not make him any less "a Christian" in his personal views -- witness the epitaph he wrote to be placed on his tombstone. Likewise, Jefferson on his tombstone did not have any reference to being President. But his support for the Virginia Act of Tolerance did appear on his tombstone.
Dealing with people who left volumes of writing behind them is, as you note, a dicey project. Advocates of any position known to man can be found in short quotes from Jefferson. However, anyone who spends hundreds of hours conversing with these people through their writings, knows the truth -- none of these people were atheists, not even Tom Paine. And almost all of them were Christians, plus a few who were Jewish.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "We Are Running for Congress -- Maybe," discussion thread on FR.
It advanced, persuasively, that the document the "Committee on Stile" used as the text from which to draft the Constitution had been submitted by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. That original document was missing from the papers of the Convention, kept very sloppily by Major Jackson, its original Secretary.
As for the Amendments, James Madison, a Member of the House in the First Congress, was tasked with distilling the 200+ demands for items in a Bill of Rights into a specific set of amendments. He drafted 17 amendments, which passed the House. The Senate then reduced those to 12 Amendments, which were sent out for ratification.
Of those twelve, the third through twelfth were quickly ratified, and became the Bill of Rights. What was the Third Amendment as submitted, became the First Amendment as ratified. The original Second Amendment, concerning congressional pay raises, did not get ratified until 1992, as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. The original First Amendment was defeated.
I have all this history in one of my books. I wrote the Introduction to the facsimile reprint of Robert Yates' Secret Procedings and Debates of the Convention to Form the US Constitution. Trust me, I know these things.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "We Are Running for Congress -- Maybe," discussion thread on FR.
On the first night of class (I taught pre-law and poli-sci majors at night), I said to them, "Do not trust conclusions given to you by any apparent expert, including me. Read the original documents. Reflect on them. And reach your own conclusions." In short, I approached politics the same way that Martin Luther approached religion.
Sadly, a good deal of the publis debate today on basic political issues amounts to no more than a war between supporters of conflicting assumptions, none of whom have read and understood the basic documents.
BB
Jefferson was a deist - perhaps even an unbeliever - but he attended church regularly purely for the example he believed it set. My guess is that he would not have looked kindly on an attempt to remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse. Just so you know where I'm coming from: I say this as somebody sympathetic to Judge Roy Moore's cause while generally unsympathetic to the man himself.
Thank you for your input. Your books sound very interesting. But you didn't say yay or nay on Gouverneur Morris and his role in writing the Constitution. Will we meet this rake in your tome?
Who are you or Myron Thompson to tell Roy Moore how to live his own life? Just how has the TC monument told you to do anything? It isn't a law or a religion. It's a rock with words on it.
You're offended that someone else has stood up and made a statement of what he believes in and for your grievance you are willing to trash the 1st Amendment.
May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget you ever lived.
Morris will not be in my latest book. It is focused almost 100% on Tom Paine.
Billybob
Do the words on the rock have any meaning? What do the words symbolize? What ideas do they communicate? Or do you believe that the words on the rock are meaningless? If so, why are you so upset over a bunch of meaningless words on some rock?
May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget you ever lived.
Presumably you intended these words to communicate a specific meaning. Can you now see that the words on the rock, and the placement of that rock in the courthouse, were also intended to communicate a specific meaning?
I am not bothered in the least by the words on the rock but they are certainly not meaningless. As Judge Myron Thompson said:
"But,in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law."
Presumably you intended these words to communicate a specific meaning. Can you now see that the words on the rock, and the placement of that rock in the courthouse, were also intended to communicate a specific meaning?
Yah. Right. My words have meaning, Moore's words have meaning, your words have meaning ...yada, yada, yada da daaaaaa. Whoopdee freakin' doo, we've established that words have meaning. So what?
What has the monument done to you? Have you or has anyone else been required by law to do anything whatsoever because of this monument?
That's funny ... and interesting. Having never been a religious person, perhaps you could tell me, are churches required to be registered as 501c3's with the IRS? If not then I guess they could bite the bullet and stand on principle. Actually preach what they think instead of what's "safe."
Very simple. Whether you like it or not and whether you are offended by them or not is of little consequence to me or the Constituion. The Ten Commandments and the Bible are an inherent part of American jurisprudence historically speaking. They are also non sectarian having several of the worlds religions honoring them as God's word. Therefore no sect has been established.
I don't know what Myron Thompson admitted (or didn't admit) about the Ten Commandments, but I certainly don't admit it.
Then you exhibit an ignorance of the history of your country and seem to be damn proud of it.
I don't need some ancient religious tablet to tell me that, e.g., murder, theft, and perjury are morally wrong and should be against the law.
So? Who cares what you need and don't need?
I'm sick of anyone -- whether religious zealots on the right, political correctness nazis on the left, or whoever -- who wants to use the coercive power of government to tell me what I should think, what I should do, or how I should live.
Who told you what to think, do or how to live? Hyperbolic bs. Like many here at FR you want everbody to live according to your ideology and you want it enforced from a central government and legislated by the judiciary. You wouldn't know freedom itf it bit you on the ankle.
Who are you or anyone else to tell me how I should live my own life? It isn't yours to tell me how to live it. The Founding Fathers, too, understood that every man's life belonged to him and him alone. It doesn't belong to the State, and it doesn't belong to any church, either.
More hyperbole absent substance. What right is it that you think you have that prevents religion from passing your eyes in public places?
You have no right not to be offended. Hell, people offend me all the time. I don't like lots of things that I see on public property but it doesn't violate and of my inalienable rights.
You're the proponent of statism here amigo. No different from the left, just different rules but the same in one respect. You make them from a central government and every state and community in the Republic has to abide by them or else.
Well kesg, I'm here to tell you that there are those of us who will push back and if it twists your shorts, so be it.
I want the courts to enforce the establishment clause. Like Jefferson and Madison, I want complete separation of church and state. I don't want to see this country take a single step back to the Dark and Middle Ages, or to the Iran or Saudi Arabia of today.
I don't know why you posted this to me. I didn't say it.
I want the courts to enforce the establishment clause. Like Jefferson and Madison, I want complete separation of church and state. I don't want to see this country take a single step back to the Dark and Middle Ages, or to the Iran or Saudi Arabia of today.
And Roy's Rock is going to do that? It has established nothing but a monument to the source of Western secular law and Judge Moore's opinion. You just can't answer to that can you? You also failed to answer these questions:
What has the monument done to you? Have you or has anyone else been required by law to do anything whatsoever because of this monument?
Unless you have surrendered all of your intellect to your witch hunting ideology you will be able to give a reasoned answer to them.
And Roy's Rock is going to do that? It has established nothing but a monument to the source of Western secular law and Judge Moore's opinion. You just can't answer to that can you?
I guess I'll address these questions as well. The answer to the first question is: no, not by itself. However, it's a very small step in a very bad direction that I absolutely positively don't want us to go. I don't take just a little poison with my food, either, for the same reasons. Moreover, for the reasons stated in the original article, I deny that the Ten Commandments is a source of Western secular law.
LOL, this from the guy that thinks Thomas Jefferson and James Madison coauthored the First Amendment?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.