If you find this article informative and worthwhile, please support my work by donating if you can.

logo    Publicly Posting the Ten Commandments


This controversy which raises issues about the separation of church and state is really very difficult to make sense of.

First of all, the motives of those who advocate publicly posting the Commandments are not clear, because the Commandments contain two entirely different kinds of prohibitions. The first four are clearly religious; the last six are not. If the true motive of these advocates is the promotion of religion, then they must want all ten of the Commandments posted, which clearly raises a separation of church and state issue.

However, if their motive is merely the promotion of ethical values, it may be that no separation of church and state issue is involved. The last six Commandments are religiously neutral. Honoring one's father and mother and censuring killing, adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting contain no religious implications, and these six Commands can easily serve as a rudimentary ethical system. After all, they are not bad rules. If even Jews and Christians obeyed them, the world would be a much better place.

Unfortunately, that the first four Commands be dropped has never been suggested, and what's perhaps even more suspicious, Jews and Christians don't show a greater propensity to obeying these Commandments than non-believers and the adherents of other religions do.

So just what is publicly positing the Commandments supposed to accomplish, especially if they are not strictly obeyed by the  proponents themselves? How will such postings make things better?

In addition, however, I am even more perplexed about why Christians would advocate such postings. The Ten Commandments are Judaic, not Christian. Jesus makes that perfectly clear in Matthew 5.

"You have heard that it was said . . . You shall not kill"--an unambiguous reference to the sixth Commandment. And then Jesus goes on, "But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. "Jesus clearly considers the Commandment to be inadequate. Again, "You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery."--an unambiguous reference to the seventh Commandment. And then Jesus goes on, "But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Again he considers the Commandment to be inadequate. Still again,"Again you have heard that it was said . . . You shall not swear falsely. . . ."--an unambiguous reference to the ninth Commandment  But then Jesus goes on, "But I say to you, Do not swear at all. . . ." Again the Commandment is inadequate. Although Jesus does not consider the Commandments wrong, he clearly implies that they are insufficient.

So why would Christians want to see them posted everywhere? Wouldn't it be more reasonable for them to recommend the adoption of what Jesus clearly teaches?

"You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. . . . And, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Sadly, these commandments are entirely ignored.

Can anyone make sense of any of this? (2/23/2005)