[HANK]

1st Commandment; Verse 3: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

The Israelites were to worship only Jehovah. As in many other passages of the Hebrew Scriptures, other (Pagan) gods are assumed to exist, but are not to be worshipped.

As a purely religious document for Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, it is fine. But if posted as a guide for the behavior of students in a public school, it is much more problematic:

It conflicts with the beliefs of minority religions in society. It is offensive to followers of Hinduism, Sikhism, Wicca, Buddhism (some traditions), Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, etc. These religions worship many Gods, a different single God, two deities or no God.

If shown in isolation, it is in direct conflict with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees freedom of religious belief and separation of church and state. However, if it is shown as one document in a grouping of religious and secular laws, it may be constitutional.

It conflicts with the Ethic of Reciprocity, called the Golden Rule in Judeo-Christianity, since it causes distress to followers of other religions.

Some people interpret this commandment symbolically: they see it as prohibiting the worship of money, status, success, beauty, etc in place of Jehovah.

2nd Commandment; Verses 4-6: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Many liberal theologians believe that the original commandment consisted only of the opening nine-word phrase. The rest was added later to expand the number of prohibitions.

The phrase "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children" raises some serious ethical concerns. This concept of spreading the responsibility for one person's sin among all family members was common in the ancient Middle East. However, most contemporary ethical systems -- both secular and religious -- hold a person responsible only for their own actions. If a person robs a bank, we do not arrest and punish his grand-daughter. Today, it is generally seen as profoundly immoral to punish a person for the sins or criminal activities of others. But this biblical verse not only holds a man responsible for his personal sinful behavior, but also holds his daughters and sons, his grand-children, great-grandchildren and perhaps even great-great-grandchildren accountable. The stoning to death of Achan and his family for a sinful act which was performed by the father alone is another application of this principle of transferring sin from the guilty party to many innocent parties. See Joshua 7:19-25.

Harry Binswanger a professor at the Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivist Graduate Center takes a very dim view of this commandment. He suggests: "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." 4

The Amish and some other conservative and Old Order Mennonites continue to prohibit the taking of photographs, because they view them as a form of graven image.

This is one of the two commandments that religious organizations most often violate. It is very difficult to find a church in North America that does not display some object which is a likeness of a crucifix, dove, host, cross, burning bush, a saint, the Holy Family or some other entity found in heaven or earth. "...our churches are filled with them, from crosses to crucifixes to tabernacles to ambreys to icons to stations of the cross." 2

The Westminster Larger Catechism interprets this Commandment broadly. It considers "toleration of a false religion" to be a sin. i.e. allowing others to enjoy religious freedom and to follow their own religious beliefs is to be suppressed. Another sin is to place a painting of Jesus on the wall of a home or church -- a common practice by Christians today. 1


3rd Commandment; Verse 7: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

This is another commandment where religious liberals believe that only the first 13 word phrase was in the original text.

This verse originally meant that one is not to use the name of God for "any frivolous or malicious purpose or in magic."

Until recently, the phrase "taking God's name in vain" related to contracts. They were sworn "in the name of the Lord". If the terms of a contract were broken, the offending party was said to have taken "the Lord's name in vain." 3

Again, the Westminster Larger Catechism interprets this Commandment broadly to include believing in false doctrines or opposing God's truth.

Today, it is often mistakenly interpreted as prohibiting swearing. This has nothing to do with its original meaning.


4th Commandment; Verses 8-11: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Again, the first sentence (Verse 8) is believed by many liberal theologians to have been the initial commandment. It was later expanded by another author.

This is another commandment that is violated by almost every Christian denomination. God gave a permanent command that the people rest every Saturday. There are numerous biblical passages to confirm this. Constantine, a Pagan Roman sun-worshiper, moved the day of rest to Sunday. The Christian church, at its Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE, ordered that religious observances be moved from Saturday to Sunday. The Seventh Day Adventists are the only major North American Christian denomination to continue to follow the 4th commandment.

Most Christian denominations have simply reinterpreted this commandment as referring to Sunday in place of Saturday.

The Westminster Larger Catechism states that Christians must not only abstain from all work, but avoid recreation as well. They should spend as much time as possible "in the public and private exercises of God's worship." 1

In today's multi-faith society, followers of different religions have different days of rest or days of religious observation. Jews have their Saturday Sabbath which begins at Friday sundown; Christians their Sunday services; Muslims observe Friday evening prayers. Wiccans celebrate at full moons, solstices, equinoxes and 4 other days. Forcing everyone to observe a single day of rest is impractical. It would would be inconsiderate and lack respect for religious diversity.

With so many commercial establishments and factories open seven days a week, many Christian employees are forced to violate this Commandment.


5th Commandment; Verse 12: "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

Again, many religious liberals believe that the original text only included the first 6 words. The rest was added later by a second author.

The rationale behind this commandment might have been to prevent the neglect of the elderly. In the Middle East, where life was sometimes precarious, those who were unable to contribute to the standard of living of the family were sometimes not adequately supported.

The Commandment promises a long life to those who honor their parents. It implies that those who do not honor their parents will die young. We have never seen a study designed to check on the accuracy of this proposition.

Many would feel that it is an unreasonable expectation for a child to honor a parent who was a sexual molester, a physical abuser or was guilty of neglect. Harry Binswanger comments: "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." 4

The Westminster Larger Catechism expands this this commandment enormously to include all older people, people who are "superiors in gifts," supervisors, managers, clergy, legislators, police, etc.

Source: Religious Tolerance.org

HANK :)