Are The Ten Commandments Relevant In the 21st Century ?

The following write up is a review of the famous ten commandments to see if they
really are the foundation of contemporary US society as claimed by the religious and
political conservatives. Even though this article was written for a US audience we
can draw parallel for our own Ghana. As always readers are encouraged to comment ,
present counterpoints, and ask questions.

Three Out of Ten?
It is often said that the biblical Ten Commandments form the basis of our legal
system. So I thought I would do a quick review to see how that founding basis fares
in contemporary American legal practice.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me - is the fundamental tenet of monotheism,
the founding strain in Judiasm that extends into Christianity and Islam. The notion
of separation of church and state entered Western thought in the 1500s with Spinoza.
Through the crucible of centuries of religious wars in Europe, it became one of the
founding tenets of the United States. Here it is perfectly legal to be Hindu, or to
subscribe to the polytheistic views of native Americans.

2. No idols. One of the most popular shows on television is American Idol, which not
only worships singing idols, but tries to make new ones. I rest this case.

3. Thou shalt not use the Lord's name in vain -- is commonly accepted as a ban on
profanity, although a narrower interpretation would hold it only to ban perjury
under oath. The latter definition is still very much a part of our legal system, but
the broader interpretation fell away steadily during the 20th Century, until there
is little left of it.

4. Keep the Sabbath -- The last vestige of this in our legal system can be found in
a handfull of states that limit liquor sales on Sunday morning. My favorite
retailer's hours are "daily 9 to 9." It does not matter to the law whether one
spends Sabbath attending services or out shopping.

5. Honor thy Father and thy Mother -- at least don't mess with their Social Security
and Medicare.
6. Thou shalt not murder -- is still on the books.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery -- is now grounds for unflattering publicity, but
not criminal indictment, or even divorce in the majority of states with "no-fault"
laws.

8. Thou shalt not steal -- is still on the books. Behavior on Wall Street makes one
wonder if enforcement is selective and lax.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness -- is still on the books and stronger than
ever. When prosecutors can't make the case for the real crime, they often press for
a conviction on charges of lying to officials, which they can prove more easily.

10. Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's goods -- Take a walk down Madison Avenue to
see an entire industry based on the opposite premise.

So how do the Ten Commandments hold up? I count only three that are still fully
enshrined in our legal system in a way that Moses would recognize.

From Spinoza to the British Empiricists to the Founding Fathers, we inherit a notion
that society can, and should, make laws to create conditions in which society can
stay in existence and flourish. If an idea is thought good, but not necessary for
society's continued existence, than it should be a matter of private advocacy, but
not a matter of law.
Proper laws can be much more detailed and situational than the Ten Commandments. The
notion that everyone should drive their vehicle on the same side of the road was
probably not important in Biblical times, but the mayhem and chaos that would result
in a world of planes, trains, and automobiles without such restrictions almost
defies imagination.
Also, that something is not a matter of law does not mean it is still not a
cherished value of society. Individuals and groups may still chose to adhere to a
principle without the lash of the law. The Commandment for monotheism is not the law
in the United States, but a higher percentage of Americans regularly attend church,
synagogue, or mosque than almost anywhere else in the world.
Which brings me to two debates that bring the libertarian tradition of our legal
system into focus: abortion and gay marriage. For both issues, one side wants to
make their position a matter of law, enforcing it on the entire population. The
other side wants to leave it as a matter of individual choice, which is different
from wanting to impose a different set of ideas on the entire population.
The asymmetry of the intent of the sides is too often overlooked. Advocates of gay
marriage do not want to change traditional marriage in any way. They do not want gay
people who do not believe in gay marriage, for whatever reason including religious
beliefs, to have to marry. They want the choice available to people; the other side
wants to eliminate the choice by force of law.
One can believe that a thing is wrong and still not want to legally proscribe it.
Barry Goldwater was no advocate of abortion, but he believed it was not a proper
subject for state control. He held to the clarity of this distinction despite howls
of disappointment and disapprobation from fellow Conservatives.
The history of centuries of evolution of our legal system shows that short run noise
and emotion eventually give way to the view of Spinoza, Locke, and Jefferson:
society can only really enforce those laws truly necessary to the survival of
society. Can society survive abortion and gay marriage? Most likely we will persist
and persevere, no worse than we are doing without seven of the Ten Commandments.

By Dr. Philip Neches
Chairman, Foundation Ventures LLC
Posted: August 9, 2010 02:19 PM on the HuffingtonPost.com



Culled by kwaku ba