"The Top Ten Commandments"

The Rev. Suzanne Meyer

A reading from Sightings, from the Martin Marty Center, The Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion at the University of Chicago, by Jerome Eric Copulsky and Michael Jon Kessler

"Moses Goes to Washington"

[A few months] ago, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a potentially explosive set of cases that will determine whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed in or around government buildings. At issue will be whether the displays constitute a government endorsement of religion or simply a recognition of the role that the Ten Commandments have played in American legal history.

Proponents of the public display of this code claim that it stands at the basis of the American legal order; its placement in or near American courts is thus a legitimate recognition of religion's role in the formation of our law. Yet the founding legal document of our nation, the Constitution of the United States, mentions neither the Commandments nor God. Rather, it clearly stipulates that the nation's legal framework expresses the will of "We the People." When, in the First Amendment, the Constitution mentions religion, it does so only in order to limit government's control over religion—by forbidding the establishment of religion or the regulation of its exercise.

Those who advocate such public displays nonetheless maintain that the deeply religious attitude of the Founders can be observed in other places. They rightfully point out that the Declaration of Independence makes a number of references to the deity. The Declaration, however, does not maintain that God has handed Americans their laws; rather, it states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and that this is "self-evident." That is, the Declaration holds that we know by natural reason that we have rights; it is not necessary to receive a historical revelation to know that God has endowed all people with them. Human beings may derive their rights from God, but humans are charged with the task of establishing governments, and this process grounds the legal legitimacy of those rights.

It is clear that the founding documents of our government support an understanding of legislation and political legitimacy quite different from that supposed by the Ten Commandments and the Bible. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution endorse a political order based upon human freedom such that we can govern ourselves. The Ten Commandments, however, are divinely ordained mandates. Rather than being the foundation of our democratic political order, they represent a very different—and possibly incompatible—way of thinking about authority and law. So it is far from clear that the Ten Commandments are "the fundamental legal code of the Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States."

Here ends the reading.

A few years ago a young woman tapped timidly at the door of my office at church. I didn't know her name, but I recognized her. She was a young mother I had seen around the Sunday school with two little redheaded kids in tow.

"Come in." I said, "Can I help you?"

"Yes. I've got a question. A question about the Bible." She entered my office shyly and stood just inside the doorway. She had a King James Version of the Bible in one hand.

"I'm no Biblical scholar, but I'll give it a shot," I replied. "What's your question?"

"Could you show me where the rules are in here." She held out the Bible "I've looked in here, but I can't seem to find the place where the rules are."

"The rules?" I was puzzled. What the heck did she mean by the rules?

She read the look on my face. "Somebody told me that in here are all the rules that you need, but I've looked for them and I can't find them."

I could tell that she was serious.

"I'm not sure what they meant by the rules," I said. Then I took a wild guess, "Do you think that they meant the Ten Commandments?"

"That sounds right."

She handed me the Bible. I turned to the 20th chapter of the Book of Exodus and found The Decalogue, or what is commonly called the Ten Commandments. "Maybe this is what you are looking for," I said, and I handed the Bible back to her.

She stood there in my office reading, then shook her head in disbelief. "This is it? Are you sure? That's all there is?"

"I guess you could throw in love your neighbor as yourself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's about it. The Bible is more a book of stories rather than a book of rules. You read the stories and then you interpret them; try to figure out what they mean in terms of your own life."

She looked very disappointed.

I tried another tactic, "Is there something that maybe you would like to talk with me about?"

She sat down and began to tell me about her life. She was a smart, capable young mother who was exhausted by the stress of being the parent of two active youngsters. She and her husband never seemed to have much time for each other anymore. He was self-employed and seemed to work all the time, but the business wasn't prospering. She worried a lot about her kids, about the dangers, the temptations, and the social pressures that face all kids these days. She wanted some guidance.

And while she said that she was not a religious person, and although she assured me that she did try very hard to be a good person, she wanted to believe that there were some guidelines, some rules, some formula out there somewhere that could point her in the right direction. Someone told her to look in the Bible.

So where is the connection between the scholarly and legal debate going on in the high courts of our land right now over whether or not to display the Ten Commandments in public buildings, such as schools and courthouses, and my encounter with a young mother—a mother looking for something on the order of an unimpeachable source of authority that could assist her in her efforts to be a good person and a good role model to her children? On the one hand, you've got the esoteric world of constitutional law. On the other hand, you have the ordinary world of men and women who struggle to live decently and honorably in a time and place that seems increasing full of moral contradictions and ethical pitfalls. Although they do not consider themselves religious, these people want something they can point to as a source of moral authority. The question about whether we should or should not display the Ten Commandments in the classroom or the courtroom brings these two worlds together.

I am well aware that there are those in this nation who believe that the separation of church and state guarantees them freedom from religion—at least in the public square. They believe that any display of sectarian symbolism in any setting other than a house of worship or a private home is an affront to their right not to have any kind of faith imposed upon them. These individuals feel that all of our public spaces should be religion-free zones. They, of course, strongly oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments on public properties, or the presence of anything at all symbolic or that otherwise smacks of religion, regardless of its source or any implied historic connection to the founders of this nation or these founders' intentions.

And on the other side of the argument, there are those who would claim that the Founding Fathers were Christian men whose values were shaped and guided by Biblical principles. To that end, the Ten Commandments ought to be placed in every courtroom, and classroom, not to promote a religion, as such, but just to remind Americans that our nation was founded by godly men.

And then I suspect that there are many individuals like the young mother who came to my office with Bible in hand. Like her, they are searching for some source of authority that will provide ethical guidance. Like her, they do not consider themselves religious. The young mother who came to my office was not searching for religious answers per se, at least not a set of doctrines or dogmas or metaphysical propositions. She just wanted to know, "What should I tell my children? What kind of absolute moral authority can I point to?" She was searching for reassurance, the sense that there was something out there that she could trust, something she could rely upon in times of moral confusion and doubt. Someone told her that the Ten Commandments were exactly what she needed. Like so many other Americans, she was not thinking about the separation of church and state; she was thinking about being a good parent and a good person, and looking for help, regardless of its source.

Go to the self-help section of any bookstore. You will find numerous offerings that promise Top Ten Investment Strategies, Ten Ways to Meet The Person of your Dreams, Ten Tips for Losing Weight and Getting Fit, Ten Beauty Secrets that Will Make You Irresistible, Ten Homes Repairs You Can Do Yourself, Ten Secrets to A Happy Marriage, and so forth and so on. Whatever the problem, whatever the need, we Americans want to believe that the solution can be reduced to straightforward rules, tips, strategies, secrets to success, that can be listed, posted, and followed with ease. Skip the details, cut to the chase, and forget the nuances and all of the ethical the gray areas. I don't want to take the time to examine my values. I just want you to show me the rules.

So why not post the Ten Commandments in the courtroom or in the classroom just for their symbolic value, not to promote a belief system, but to promote the idea that personal morality and ethics do matter in a civilized society? Why not provide some help for those parents and teachers who want something, anything to which they can point for moral guidance?

Public opinion is clear in the matter. According to a Gallup poll, 76 percent of those surveyed say state governments should be allowed to display the Ten Commandments, and only 21 percent disagree. However, I wonder how many of those who are in favor of a public display of the Decalogue have ever paid close attention to the actual wording of the Ten Commandments. Do they have any idea of what those tablets really say?

I think most people would have no trouble agreeing with the commandments, "Thou shall not steal," or, "Thou shall not kill." And it is generally a good thing to honor one's parents and to always tell the truth. But what about, "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"? Whose Sabbath day are we supposed to remember: the Jewish one, the Christian Sabbath, or the Muslim holy day? "Thou shalt not covet"? If Americans stopped coveting their neighbor's goods, that might undermine our whole economic system, driven as it is by our desires to acquire the latest goods and fashions in order to keep up with the Joneses. What about the one that says, "Thou shalt not take the Lord Thy God's name in vain"? What about those signs that demand "God Bless America," signs which obviously invoke the name of the Deity for our national advantage? Those could be construed as taking God's name in vain.

The first commandment prohibits the worship of any deity other than Yahweh. This commandment could be problematic for Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and Wiccans, and could generate hatred and violence against minority religions. The Commandments themselves prohibit the worship of graven images. To place a monument to them in the courthouse square by the authority of the state is to violate the spirit of this very commandment. The tenth commandment treats women as objects to be owned by their husbands. There might be some objection to that.

Whether you agree with all ten of the commandments or not, it is clear from their contents that they are not generic, non-sectarian, one-size-fits-all rules for good behavior. They are specific to one religious tradition. To say that their contents or their origins in a particular tradition is far less important than their historic or symbolic value is to deny the very source of their power. Copulsky and Kessler say: "However, to argue that a public display of the Ten Commandments can serve a merely secular purpose is to undercut their sanctity" (Sightings, March 17, 2005). "[We] should be wary of any attempt to unhitch the Ten Commandments from their religious moorings" ("Beyond the Commandments," The Christian Century, 122, no. 9 (2005): 9).

As a religious leader, I am in favor of the promotion of religion. I believe that America's founders intended the separation of church and state not to function to silence the churches, nor to diminish the importance of religion in public life, but rather to enable religion to thrive unhindered in a free market. Thus, I always do my best to bear witness in the public square to the religious values that guide my life. And I would encourage you to do likewise. Too often, we religious liberals are reluctant to give voice to our values and to identify the origins of those values as being rooted in our religious tradition. Our reluctance to speak publicly as religious liberals means that the only voices currently heard in the public square are the voices of the extremists on the religious right.

There is no such thing as religion in general, generic spirituality, or religion as merely an historical artifact. Once you unhitch values, beliefs, ethics, and morals from their original source in religion, they cease to have power at all. To say that the Ten Commandments are merely a symbol, an object or an historic document, apart from their roots in Judaism, is identical to saying that a cross, a nativity scene or a menorah can be part of a nonsectarian holiday display along with Santa Claus and Frosty the Snowman, and not give offense to people of faith. Those naïve assumptions ought to be as objectionable to those who want freedom from religion as they are to religious people. When something that is sacred becomes a generic symbol, suitable for public display, it ceases to have any deeper meaning. It becomes another object among objects, without power or purpose. Sacred things must be treated as sacred, and secular things must be treated as secular. They ought not to be mixed and mingled.

I oppose prayer and Bible reading in the public schools. I oppose placing the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, or placing a cross or a menorah in front of city hall as part of a holiday display, not because I object to prayer, or because I dislike the Bible, or because I want to live in a religion-free zone; not because I want freedom from religion. Rather, I do so because I am a person of faith and I want to see these things given their proper reverence and respect. To my way of thinking, that's what our Constitution guarantees.

Amen.

Jerome Eric Copulsky is Assistant Professor of Judaic Studies at Virginia Tech. Michael Jon Kessler is Assistant Dean of the College at Georgetown University.

The introductory reading is from Copulsky, E. J., and Kessler, M. J. "Moses Goes to Washington," Sightings, March 17, 2005 (http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/
archive_2005/0317.shtml).