Are Our Laws Really Based on the Ten Commandments?

[Underlings]

After hearing the fundamentalist Christian argument for displaying the Ten Commandments in government buildings one time too many, I was inspired to make the following YouTube post:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rMLSuZY4eEw

Enjoy,
Derek

[arricchio]

Good job! I absolutely agree. You can indeed break any or all of the ten commandments and not violate a single law.

On the other hand you can violate any number of laws and never break a commandment. For example, there is no Biblical equivalent or precursor to Title 49 CFR that regulates the labeling, packaging, and transportation of hazardous materials. I fail to see any commandment that says "Thou shalt have a leak-proof inner container and a crush-proof outer container when shipping biologic samples aboard an aircraft - that thy days may be long upon the land." But just let even one of my lab samples leak in transit and we'd have the feds down on us. Never mind divine retribution. God help you if you ever get in trouble with the DOT!

For the life of me I have never understood what Christians think is so spectacularly profound about the Ten Commandents anyway. I mean seriously. Do they really think that unless God himself had written "Don't Steal" on a stone tablet with his finger at the top of a mountain with lightning flashing all around, then no one would ever have figured it out for themselves that stealing was wrong?

You no more need an infinite God to dish out what would be considered trite moralizings had they appeared anywhere other than the Bible (a Hallmark card for instance), than you need his alleged son to come to earth thousands of years later and summarize them by saying "Be nice, so others will be nice to you". Frankly I think we have a right to expect something more than the bleeding obvious from supposedly an infinite mind.

[crazyfingers]

Nice video Derek!

I think that the only way for a person to honestly claim that our laws are based on the 10Cs is to be completely ignorant on the subject.

[Civil1z@tion]

Actually about 20 states do have laws which criminalize adultery. But they are never enforced. In addition, some small towns do have ordnances banning the opening of businesses on Sunday, however the Sabaath is on Saturday according to Moses so you are correct no city or state has a law banning work on the actual Sabaath. But overall a very good and well argued position.

[Keith&Co.]

Actually about 20 states do have laws which ....Less specific, more general. One of the big 'selling points' that the thumpers try to make is that God's law never changes. Man's law does.

If our legal system was based on the 10C, would there really be a mechanism provide for future generations to change the laws? ADD laws, maybe. But would it even be possible for a state legislature to decide whether or not to adopt laws against adultery, respect of parents, coveting?

[rnrstar]

How does the Bible address things like anti-trust, copyright infringement, or consumer safety? Are we to just abandon those laws because the Bible doesn't tell us what to do?

[Magnus Armstrong]

What about the laws against cooking an animal in its own milk? The sales of shit-on-a-shingle continue apace....

[Nice Squirrel]

Our laws are NOT based upon the Ten Commandments. They are based upon English Common Law which is based upon Celto-Germanic tribal norms. Don't let any one tell you different.

[Nice Squirrel]

For the life of me I have never understood what Christians think is so spectacularly profound about the Ten Commandents anyway.
Don't lump us all thogether. But fundies tend to have a need for objective morals. The Ten Commandments to them seem very objective (if you forget about war... etc.) however much these individuals cry about objective morals they are very relativistic in how and what they choose. (Homosexuality is the big one...in some places it used to be race....)

[arricchio]

For the life of me I have never understood what Christians think is so spectacularly profound about the Ten Commandents anyway.
Don't lump us all thogether. But fundies tend to have a need for objective morals. The Ten Commandments to them seem very objective (if you forget about war... etc.) however much these individuals cry about objective morals they are very relativistic in how and what they choose. (Homosexuality is the big one...in some places it used to be race....)

Maybe what I should have said is that I don't understand what anybody thinks is so spectacularly profound about the Ten Commandments. :wave:

[rnrstar]

Don't lump us all thogether. But fundies tend to have a need for objective morals. The Ten Commandments to them seem very objective (if you forget about war... etc.) however much these individuals cry about objective morals they are very relativistic in how and what they choose. (Homosexuality is the big one...in some places it used to be race....)

Maybe what I should have said is that I don't understand what anybody thinks is so spectacularly profound about the Ten Commandments. :wave:A question I often ask is, "what out of the 10 C's is uniquely Christian?" Other societies and religions have many of the same ones, especially the murder, theft, and lying ones.

[Civil1z@tion]

Its also not a very comprehensive list. Let's see any society, modern or ancient, which tries to survive with only the laws of the Ten Commandments. Atheists could start a pool for how long they could stave off anarchy or abandon following soley the Commandments. I'd give your average society a week.

[Underlings]

Don't lump us all thogether. But fundies tend to have a need for objective morals. The Ten Commandments to them seem very objective (if you forget about war... etc.) however much these individuals cry about objective morals they are very relativistic in how and what they choose. (Homosexuality is the big one...in some places it used to be race....)

Ah, yes. And don't forget that Jesus many times said that divorcing and remarrying is no different than adultery...yet you almost never hear fundamentalists calling for divorce to be eliminated--certainly not with the zeal they use to go after homosexuals.

Why not? Well, since roughly 45% of evangelical congregations are divorced and remarried, I think you can guess why.

Derek

[Underlings]

Actually about 20 states do have laws which criminalize adultery. But they are never enforced. In addition, some small towns do have ordnances banning the opening of businesses on Sunday, however the Sabaath is on Saturday according to Moses so you are correct no city or state has a law banning work on the actual Sabaath. But overall a very good and well argued position.

Ah, I stand corrected. And thank you.

But since our legal system isn't just the laws on the books, but also the enforcement of them (and the punishments, etc.), I believe it's still fair to say adultery isn't really part of our legal system.

Derek

[AthenaAwakened]

Our laws are NOT based upon the Ten Commandments. They are based upon English Common Law which is based upon Celto-Germanic tribal norms. Don't let any one tell you different.

That's right. You tell 'Em!!!

[Xianthe]

That would be a trick even better than feeding a host with five fishes and two loaves of bread. It would take a true miracle to turn 10 simple laws into the United States legal code. The simple answer is no. As someone above notes, our laws derived from English common law...as profane as it gets.

[lpetrich]

Furthermore, the Bible contains lots and lots and lots of other laws; Orthodox Jews count 613 of them in the Law of Moses.

And the New Testament can easily be interpreted as having additional laws, complete with revocations of some OT laws, like the Sabbath, injury for injury, and the wickedness of eating certain meats.

[gilly54]

In case there is someone here who hasn't seen it, here's George Carlin's classic Ten Commandments (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU)

Intelligent people arriving at the same conclusion.

[Malachi151]

I go into the issue in quite a bit of detail here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/ten_commandments.htm

[Underlings]

A very interesting analysis, Malachi. Nicely done. It's just weird that the vast majority of Christians don't seem to have studied the very book they value above all others.

Something in the article particularly caught my attention:

Exodus 20, 4: "...I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Fundies are a literal lot, so I would think they'd expect this passage to be taken literally as well. And if so, God saying he'll show love to a thousand generations means there must be a thousand generations at the very least. If a generation is 20 years, that's 20,000 years. If Moses lived about 2400 years ago, that implies God's people will be around for many thousands of years more (even if one is extremely conservative and pushes the "official" start date of the claim back to Noah!).

I hope those expecting the Rapture to come any day now aren't holding their breath....

;)

Derek

[rickP]

I recently had a conversation online with a fundie friend of mine. He pulled out the old canard that the founding fathers wanted to base the country on Judeo-Christian principles. Not the actual, biblical laws, he claims, just the basic principles and morals. When pressed, these basic morals boiled down to the same basic principles that virtually all human civilizations share, written in our hearts by God, you see. I pointed out that that makes the claim circular and meaningless. How could they claim to be inspired by JC principles if they aren't inherently different from any others? He hasn't responded in several days.

[ahdenai]

1) I am the Lord your God
…. A rule contradicted by the first amendment free exercise clause
2) no other gods, no idols
…. Ditto
3) the name in vain
…. Free speech clause protects my right to ignore this one
4) keep the Sabbath holy
….. Some states prohibit alcohol sales on Sunday, but no laws prohibit playing golf or poker, and no laws force me to pray on the Sabbath. Overall the law is neutral on this commandment.
5) Honor your Father and Mother
….. no law requires this. Parents can exercise control of children but the law doesn’t force “honor.” And if mom & dad are unfit, the law breaks the relationship.
6) murder
….. In agreement with our law, but ours isn’t based on the T.C. as some variant of this is in the law of every nation, including those not based on the bible.
7) adultery
…. While some similar laws are still on the books, the US Supreme court in Lawrence v Texas essentially states that no such law is constitutional.
8) steal
…. Same as #7
9) false witness
…. While the law prohibits perjury under oath, it isn’t limited to neighbors. Otherwise, same comment as #7
10) shall not covet
…. No sensible law makes thoughts illegal. Our laws make actions illegal. And anyways, envy of the possessions of others is the essence of capitalism.

So what’s the score:
TC basis for our laws: 0
TC roughly agrees with our laws, but not the basis: 3 (#6, 8, 9)
TC rules ignored by our laws: 4 (#4, 5, 7, 10)
TC rules explicitly contradicted by our laws: 3 (#1, 2, 3)

Now how many of our laws have absolutely no basis in the bible? Voting for government, equal protection, trial by jury, no cruel or unusual punishment, emancipation, women’s suffrage, laws against bribery, open government, competitive bidding for government contracts, laws against child abuse or child labor, environmental protection, workplace safety and a bazillion more….

[lpetrich]

Malachi151, that is excellent and detailed work; it is interesting to see how much of our political and legal systems are independent of the Bible, how much has Greek and Roman and Germanic antecedents. It is especially interesting that the composers and defenders of the Constitution did so without reference to the Bible, but instead lots of reference to a lot of other history and scholarship.

But I suggest coming up with some bumper-sticker summary version, something that can easily fit into a Letter to the Editor or a forum post. Lengthy arguments provoke a "tl;dr" response from some people ("too long; didn't read").

And perhaps also a narrative version of your historical account, since many people find argument by narrative more convincing than they ought to.

My favorite bumper-sticker argument is the origin-of-words argument -- where do words like "democracy", "republic", and "Senate" come from?


Also fun might be a challenge: derive the US Constitution from the Bible while avoiding the sort of interpretation that can easily yield whatever heresies the audience might find particularly distasteful. Evolution, "socialism", the legitimacy of homosexuality, ...

It will be an extremely difficult uphill struggle; it will be interesting to see what stumbling efforts the Bible-bangers and theocrats come up with. How they derive from the Bible:

Elected leaders
Well-defined and relatively short terms of office
Legislative bodies
Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
No officially-supported churches
A well-defined fundamental law (Constitution)

And how does one derive from the Bible the Hobbes-Locke social-contract theory of government?
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Just about the only political theories in the entire Bible are absolute monarchy and theocracy. Purely top-down instead of bottom-up politics. The writers of that book do criticize various kings for various things, like worshipping pagan gods, but their preferred solution is for kings to be "good", not to end monarchy. And the likes of Moses and Peter seem like theocrats to me.

[WVIncagold]

I love using allot of these references http://www.nobeliefs.com/pagan.htm its a great resource against funies. The one that trips them up is when you ask them to show you in the bible where it says democracy anywhere in the bible. tell them you will believe them if they produce the one precept which we are founded on. It usually shuts them up fast. The other is the constant wish for a king itself in the bible is contrary to our ideals. ask them do they want a king and most will scream no as if its poison. but then ask them then why to you subscribe to a book where all it does is wish for a king?

[Joan of Bark]

Do Christians even know the wording of the Ten Commandments? I doubt one in a hundred could rattle off all ten without looking at a cheat sheet.

And as ahdenai has alluded to, America was practically built on opposing the tenth commandment.

[Lugubert]

Do Christians even know the wording of the Ten Commandments? I doubt one in a hundred could rattle off all ten without looking at a cheat sheet.
The Ten Commandments? There are lot of versions around. For example, how many know the words of the last commandment in the only series that in the Bible is referred to as "the ten"?

And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Right above that definition, you'll find

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

[Joan of Bark]

You're correct on my statement, Anders. I was referring to the commonly held version of the ten, obviously.

[Joan of Bark]

I would love to see, just once, some free-thinking wag politician throw up his hands and say: "okay, you win. I'll post the Ten Commandments at city hall". Then he displays the Exodus 34 version, complete with all those strange statements. The look on people's faces as they read it would be priceless -- and would probably go a long way toward silencing the bible-thumpers.

[adren@line]

It would be quite funny to see a Hindu or a Buddhist set up a service or ritual in-front of a public display of the 10 commandments, complete with idols and dozens of gods.

That right there would violate two of the commandments.

[Starr]

Do Christians even know the wording of the Ten Commandments? I doubt one in a hundred could rattle off all ten without looking at a cheat sheet.

And as ahdenai has alluded to, America was practically built on opposing the tenth commandment.

They can't know "the" Ten Commandments, because there are several distinctly different versions presented (I think there are 2 very different ones in Exodus, and another version in Deuteronomy, not sure if there are others).

[enoch007]

Sorry, but I think there is a greater point at work. The Ten Commandments do not speak to the letter of the law but speaks to the establishment of the Rule of Law. Today most Americans are deluded and indoctrinated to believe that Democracy begins and ends at the electoral process, but the Hebrew culture introduced into western culture the concept that there can be a "higher" law that all, including regents, are subject to. They cannonized it as Mosaic Law (ten commandments plus other laws) which all had to follow, hence the establishment of the rule of law. The Ten Commandments are a symbol, not legislation.

[Underlings]

The Ten Commandments are a symbol, not legislation.

Really? That's news to, well, just about every fundamentalist Christian out there....

Derek

[enoch007]

The Ten Commandments are a symbol, not legislation.

Really? That's news to, well, just about every fundamentalist Christian out there....

Derek

Well, I mean, you can't help that, those people go to museums to see dinosaurs play with cave children.

[Toto]

Sorry, but I think there is a greater point at work. The Ten Commandments do not speak to the letter of the law but speaks to the establishment of the Rule of Law. Today most Americans are deluded and indoctrinated to believe that Democracy begins and ends at the electoral process, but the Hebrew culture introduced into western culture the concept that there can be a "higher" law that all, including regents, are subject to. They cannonized it as Mosaic Law (ten commandments plus other laws) which all had to follow, hence the establishment of the rule of law. The Ten Commandments are a symbol, not legislation.

That is the theory behind the Supreme Court freize that features Moses carrying two stone tablets (with the first one obscured,) along with various other lawgivers from ancient history (Solon, Mohammed, Hammurabi. . .)

But I tend to doubt that the Hebrews were the first to introduce the idea of a higher law. In the first place, the ten commandments and the other 603 laws of the Torah were binding on Jews only. Gentiles were only expected to follow a simpler group of Noahidic laws.

And, as Thomas Jefferson demonstrated, the English common law goes back to a time before the Anglo-Saxons became Christians.

[enoch007]

That is the theory behind the Supreme Court freize that features Moses carrying two stone tablets (with the first one obscured,) along with various other lawgivers from ancient history (Solon, Mohammed, Hammurabi. . .)

But I tend to doubt that the Hebrews were the first to introduce the idea of a higher law. In the first place, the ten commandments and the other 603 laws of the Torah were binding on Jews only. Gentiles were only expected to follow a simpler group of Noahidic laws.

And, as Thomas Jefferson demonstrated, the English common law goes back to a time before the Anglo-Saxons became Christians.

after a cursory look at the wikipedia I found, in the first paragraph on the History of Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law#History_of_law), this:

The history of law is closely connected to the development of civilizations. Ancient Egyptian law, dating as far back as 3000 BCE, had a civil code that was probably broken into twelve books. It was based on the concept of Ma'at, characterised by tradition, rhetorical speech, social equality and impartiality.[62] Around 1760 BCE under King Hammurabi, ancient Babylonian law was codified and put in stone for the public to see in the marketplace; this became known as the Codex Hammurabi. However like Egyptian law, which is pieced together by historians from records of litigation, few sources remain and much has been lost over time. The influence of these earlier laws on later civilisations was small.[63] The Old Testament is probably the oldest body of law still relevant for modern legal systems, dating back to 1280 BCE. It takes the form moral imperatives, as recommendations for a good society. Ancient Athens, the small Greek city-state, was the first society based on broad inclusion of the citizenry, excluding women and the slave class from about 8th century BCE. Athens had no legal science, and Ancient Greek has no word for "law" as an abstract concept.[64] Yet Ancient Greek law contained major constitutional innovations in the development of democracy.[65]


It would seem that the older codes of law lasted only as long as their dynastic authors did, whereas the Mosaic Law survived its author. True, it was exclusive to the Jewish people but it did lay a foundation of a Rule of Law not bound to its temporal authors.

[Toto]

Wikipedia is probably not the best source for this. Any Christian apologist can come along and add some biased assertion about the virtues of the Bible.

One of the sources is A Short History of Western Legal Theory. Browsing the first page on Amazon seems to contradict the assertion that 'Athens had no legal science, and Ancient Greek has no word for "law" as an abstract concept.'

I do not think that the date given for the Torah above can be supported, and I do not think that the Torah is any more relevant that the code of Hammurabi, to which it owes a great debt.

[enoch007]

Wikipedia is probably not the best source for this. Any Christian apologist can come along and add some biased assertion about the virtues of the Bible.

One of the sources is A Short History of Western Legal Theory. Browsing the first page on Amazon seems to contradict the assertion that 'Athens had no legal science, and Ancient Greek has no word for "law" as an abstract concept.'

I do not think that the date given for the Torah above can be supported, and I do not think that the Torah is any more relevant that the code of Hammurabi, to which it owes a great debt.


Good point, Toto, I threw that up quickly to get a response which I felt some of the real intelligent peeps out there might provide. In Googling your recommendation I did run across a site from which I could glean the first page of the text and the authors point of departure


The reason why Greece has a special place in the history of
civilization is not merely that most departments of literature and the
visual arts were there raised to levels which later ages agreed to
regard as classical, that is, as permanent standards of excellence. It is
also because the Greeks were the first people--at any rate, the first
of whom Europe retains any consciousness--among whom reflective
thought and argument became a habit of educated men; a training
for some, and a profession or vocation for others, not confined to
observation of the physical world and universe--in which the
Egyptians and Babylonians had long preceded them--but extending
to man himself, his nature, and his place in the order of things, the
character of human society, and the best way of governing it.

Other ancient peoples had contained priests and prophets whose
teaching or whose poetic insights included perceptions of human
nature and moral precepts; a lot of the Old Testament of the Jews,
for example, could be put into that category. Similarly, other
ancient peoples, since they had laws, must have had some capacity
to reason about the function of a law and how best to make it
achieve a particular purpose; this can be presumed of the civilizations
of Mesopotamia, from whose ruins the great code of the Babylonian
King Hammurabi (about 1800 BC) and the laws of Eshnuna (about
200 years older still) have been excavated. This epoch antedates the
high period of Greek civilization by roughly 1,500 years.

but my thoughts on this came from a reading of History of the Jews by Paul M. Johnson , in which he examines the functions of the Mosaic Law as the establishment of a Rule of Law. Its feature of being inspired by god then gave it a primacy over temporal affairs, so the author said. His work also explored the problematic relationship between the Israelites and Kingship, its origins and trajectories in the ancient world. I think his point about the Mosaic law and its relationship to both the Rule of Law and roots of Democracy (the ROL being indispensible thereto) are worth consideration. But I would be open to any other outlooks or observations. What about the Mandarin system and Confucianism, which dates, I believe, from circa 500 BCE? etc. But thanks for the tip, oh doggie of Dorothy.

[Toto]

The Amazon and publishers reviews describe Johnson as "wrong-headed" and such. The book sounds like an exercise in ideology rather than legal analysis. There is a place for this sort of ideologically-driven history, but you have to take it with a grain of salt, if not an entire carton of Morton's.

The Chinese Mandarin system is different. The Chinese method was to recruit the best and the brightest as government bureaucrats, in the expectation that as wise men they would settle disputes wisely. The Mardarin system contributed to our modern civil service, but not much to the Rule of Law.

[diana]

First, excellent video, Underlings. :)

Don't let any one tell you different.While I agree with your point, I suppose I take issue with the comment "Don't let anyone tell you different," because it sums up the reason I was sheltered from logic, science, and alternate viewpoints for all of my formative years, and suggests someone should just take your word for it. Truth has nothing to fear.

Let someone tell you different. Then ask questions and do your research.

It's just weird that the vast majority of Christians don't seem to have studied the very book they value above all others.They have no need. They go to church, see, and are taught all they need to know there. Why read it on their own? (Those who read and consider on their own often leave the faith, paradoxically....)

I recently had a conversation online with a fundie friend of mine. He pulled out the old canard that the founding fathers wanted to base the country on Judeo-Christian principles.Such folk tend to unintentionally--I assume, in the interest of charity--conflate the Pilgrims coming here in the 15th C. "for religious freedom" (and subsequently establishing several colonies without it) with the men who drafted our Constitution, who specifically omitted religious requirements for office.

It bears repeating that America is here in direct violation of clear Christian principles:

1Pe 2:13-8 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using [your] liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all [men]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Rom 13:1-7 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

d

[enoch007]

The Amazon and publishers reviews describe Johnson as "wrong-headed" and such. The book sounds like an exercise in ideology rather than legal analysis. There is a place for this sort of ideologically-driven history, but you have to take it with a grain of salt, if not an entire carton of Morton's.



Toto, could you perhaps refer me to the reviews you cite here, for my own interest and perspective on this work? Thank you.

[Toto]

The Amazon and publishers reviews describe Johnson as "wrong-headed" and such. The book sounds like an exercise in ideology rather than legal analysis. There is a place for this sort of ideologically-driven history, but you have to take it with a grain of salt, if not an entire carton of Morton's.



Toto, could you perhaps refer me to the reviews you cite here, for my own interest and perspective on this work? Thank you.

Follow the Amazon link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060915331/internetinfidels)Johnson's history is lucid, thorough, and--as one would expect of almost any project with such a broad scope--a little wrong-headed. By the end of the book, readers will be grateful for Johnson's questioning of the Jews' confidence in their cosmic significance. However, readers may also be a little annoyed by his energetic inquiries as to whether this significance was man-made or providentially provided. Either way, it's a given: for a historian of Israel, this should adequately settle the question. Johnson's 600-page history is probably the best we've got by a living gentile

The reactions to the book among Amazon reviewers seem to react to his political stance - he favors the idea that the Jews invented ethical monotheism (we know that the early Israelites were polytheistic), and he is pro-Zionist.

From one review: In the Prologue, Johnson writes; "At a very early stage in their collective existence they believed they had detected a divine scheme for the human race, of which their own society was to be a pilot. They worked out their role in immense detail. They clung to it with heroic persistence in the face of savage suffering. Many of them believe it still. Others transmuted it into Promethean endeavors to raise our condition by purely human means."

Now this seems to be an accurate appraisal of the essence of Judaism, and a worldview with which Johnson agrees. He clearly believes that the Jews are God's gift to mankind and they, the enlightened ones, are here to lead the gentiles along the path to righteousness. He believes the Jews hold a "special genius" that the rest of us apparently don't. He cites their numerous contributions throughout the ages, starting with the concept of ethical monotheism, and continuing on with an "endless continuum of patient study, fruitful industry" and an untiring commitment to bettering the human condition. Of course there is some truth to the Jew's consistent intellectual proficiency, but it should be obvious that this grandiose, self-appointed scheme is inherently antagonistic and thus anti-Semitism is an inevitable result.

Someone who starts with this attitude is going to find that the Jews invented everything. But you could do the same for any ethnic group.

[Joan of Bark]

Do Christians even know the wording of the Ten Commandments? I doubt one in a hundred could rattle off all ten without looking at a cheat sheet.

And as ahdenai has alluded to, America was practically built on opposing the tenth commandment.

They can't know "the" Ten Commandments, because there are several distinctly different versions presented (I think there are 2 very different ones in Exodus, and another version in Deuteronomy, not sure if there are others).

The three different versions appear in Exodus 20 and 34, and Deutoronomy 5. The first and third versions are almost the same, and the ones that Christians are referring to when they use the term.

[sdelsolray]

Maybe what I should have said is that I don't understand what anybody thinks is so spectacularly profound about the Ten Commandments. :wave:A question I often ask is, "what out of the 10 C's is uniquely Christian?" Other societies and religions have many of the same ones, especially the murder, theft, and lying ones.

Actually, the 10 Commandments (except the monotheistic Commandments) predate Moses by quite some time, tracing back to earlier cultures and religions - Egyptian mostly. They were recopied into the Bible.

[Shake]

It just so happens that my bookmarks contain a folder labeled, "10C links," and it contains several items which would be relevant to this discussion.

First off, we have to know *Which* Ten Commandments (http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm) to discuss. You'll find there are several versions with some significant differences.

I'll omit the George Carlin bit, as it's already been mentioned here. Similar to the above piece, is this one (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html) which can be found in the SecWeb Library (http://www.infidels.org/library).

And finally, I have several refutations of the Decalogue as being any sort of basis for US law:
Commandments 5 to 11 (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/cortesi2.html)
Erroneous statements ... (http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2005/03/25/opinion/letters/letter01.txt)
First Amendment is real foe of 'commandments' (http://www.lufkindailynews.com/biz/content/shared/news/nation/stories/10/1012_COXYOUNG_COLUMN.html)
The 10 Commandments are everything the United States are not (http://www.skepticreport.com/religion/10command.htm)
And finally, from Professor Marci Hamilton, we have The Ten Commandments and American Law:
Why Some Christians' Claims to Legal Hegemony Are Not Consistent with the Historical Record (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030911.html).

The Hamilton piece is one I highly recommend. In case you don't know about her:
Marci Hamilton is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University