Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Every time Huckabee starts talking about religion he comes off looking like an ignoramus. MSNBC reports on a conversation Huckabee had with reporters on his campaign bus that included this gem:
"The Ten Commandments form the basis of most of our laws and therefore, you know if you look through them does anybody find anything there that would be all that objectionable? I don't think most people would if they actually read them," he said.
Utter nonsense. I can't see how anyone who has actually read them could possibly think that they are the basis of "most of our laws. Of the ten commandments, only two would even be constitutional in the United States, with a third being constitutional in limited circumstances. The other 7 could not possibly be the basis for any law because they would be clearly unconstitutional. Let's take a look at them one by one:
1. Thou shall have no other Gods before me.
Blatantly unconstitutional. The free exercise clause of the first amendment guarantees that we each have the right to follow any God and any religious belief system we wish.
2. 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.
Also unconstitutional on free exercise grounds. Americans can make any graven image they wish to make, and bow down to whatever god or idol they wish.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Unconstitutional on both freedom of religion and free speech grounds.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Again, unconstitutional on free exercise grounds.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother
A good idea, in most cases, but a law requiring it would be unconstitutional and outside the purview of government. You can't legally enforce an individual's feelings toward their parents.
6. Thou shalt not kill
This one is obviously constitutional, and is a part of our legal system. But it's also found in EVERY legal system, even those that have nothing to do with the bible or Christianity. No society can condone murder of each other and survive, so this is simply a survival imperative.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
Another one that is a good idea, but not constitutional if legally enforced. Adultery is a moral wrong, but it's a private matter between individuals.
8. Thou shalt not steal
This is the second one that is obviously constitutional, but also found in every legal system regardless of the religious system that may have initially spawned it. A universal imperative that would be part of the law even if the bible never existed.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Some have interpreted this to be analagous to our perjury laws, but nothing in the text indicates that. It's talking about lying in general, not in a legal sense during court proceedings. And while lying may be wrong, it's not legally wrong except in specific circumstances - perjury and libel/slander. Under our system, most instances of lying would be covered by the first amendment free speech clause.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's
Not only unconstitutional, it would require the ability to read minds. If coveting what your neighbor has was against the law in the US, there would be no "keeping up with the Joneses". You cannot, under our system, legislate against thoughts or feelings.
The "basis of most of our laws"? Not even close.
Comments
I think this is like the war on Christmas nonsense. No one actually believes the 10 commandments are the foundation of our laws in the US. It's propaganda pure and simple.
Posted by: Donna | December 24, 2007 9:42 AM
I believe adultery is still on the books in some states as illegal. In those states where it isn't, I don't believe it is because of a constitutional challenge, although I may be wrong. Lying can carry civil penalties in some cases such as lying in a business transaction.
It's amazing to me how effective the RR has been at making being a Jesus Freak not only acceptable, but a prerequisite for running for office. And I'm not talking about just being religious, but being a bible thumping Jesus Freak.
Posted by: soboco | December 24, 2007 9:42 AM
If commandment # 10 was enforced, our economy would collapse!
Posted by: Dave Carlson | December 24, 2007 9:58 AM
But Ed, you're only telling half the story. Don't forget that violations of the Ten Commandments are punishable by death by stoning.
Whenever this sort of moral crap comes up I always think of an old post at another blog making the point that anyone can easily devise a list of do's or don't's that most people will recognize as being more moral than the laws in the Bible.
The link: http://www.idrewthis.org/2007/02/were-smarter-than-god.html
Posted by: Kevin L. | December 24, 2007 10:08 AM
"6. Thou shalt not kill
This one is obviously constitutional, and is a part of our legal system."
What about the death penalty?
"9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Some have interpreted this to be analagous to our perjury laws, but nothing in the text indicates that. It's talking about lying in general, not in a legal sense during court proceedings."
Somebody should inform the creationists about this.
"10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ... manservant, nor his ... ass..."
So that's why they don't like gays.
Posted by: Lassi Hippeläinen | December 24, 2007 10:33 AM
Most christians that I know are not only ignorant of what the "ten commandments" really say, they are pretty much ignorant of what the rest of their Wholly Babble has to say.
To paraphrase Penn and Teller: "What we need are more atheists, and nothing gets you there faster than reading the bible."
I'll shamelessly steal another line, this one from P.Z. Myers: Huckabee is a "demented fuckwit". Amen.
Posted by: waldteufel | December 24, 2007 10:35 AM
Too bad Colbert's on hiatus, but he's already covered that one.
Posted by: NM | December 24, 2007 10:52 AM
The other thing that always strikes me about statements like Huckabee's is this:
"...if you look through them does anybody find anything there that would be all that objectionable?"
There seems to be a line of thought that no one could possibly have a problem with [fill in the blank]. The blank could be filled in with the 10 Cs, or a cross in a court house, etc. And in some of those cases I have heard Fundies opine that it's not just Christian, it stands for the importance of all religion. They themselves, of course, would have a shit fit if the symbol chosen to "represent all religions" were anything other than a Christian one.
In the case of the 10 Cs I can easily see someone having real difficulties with the first four, at least.
Posted by: Jim51 | December 24, 2007 10:52 AM
Funny moments with the Ten Commandments:
George Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU
I can't find it, but Colbert's show when he asked the congressman who was sponsoring the bill to require posting of the 10 Commandments in the capital builidng to name the Commandments, and he could only name three of them....now that was funny
Posted by: Lawdog | December 24, 2007 11:08 AM
Here's the Colbert segment. It was Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia.
Posted by: Pieter B | December 24, 2007 11:42 AM
Plus there's good reason to believe that "The Ten Commandments" aren't even Biblical, and that the original Decalogue referred not just to Exodus 20, but to chapters 20-31 (including the bits about selling your daughter into sexual slavery).
Full documentation at http://www.geocities.com/manutter51/10c/.
Posted by: Mark Nutter | December 24, 2007 12:19 PM
But the Religious Wrong loves nothing more than talking vainly about God. Let's stone them! Stone them all!
Funny, there's no exception for child abusing bastards.
I can't agree with you here, Ed. Our society condones murder situationally, as do most societies. You can kill in self-defense. You can kill if you're a government paid executioner doing his job. You can kill if you're a soldier and you're killing some guy the government tells you is bad. I find it amusing that most of the religious wrong support these fine examples of killing, while the clearly atheistic liberals *spit* follow this commandment much more faithfully.
Historically, societies have thrived with far more killing. Duels of honor, anyone?
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | December 24, 2007 12:35 PM
Thanks Pieter...that was just too funny...you just couldn't make that up. One of the problems with the 10 Commandments is that I--and I think many others--mix them up with the Seven Deadly Sins. Why, I was was practicing gluttony and lust just last night!
If America wants to understand what life might be under a Christian theocracy, just look at the Puritans...that was fun!
Posted by: lawdog | December 24, 2007 1:33 PM
The TRUE Ten Commandments, which are the only commandments called commandments by god himself in the bible are actually in Exodus 34. Here they are.
(Please note: the TRUE 10th Commandment forbids boiling a baby goat in it's mothers milk!)
1. "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" (Exodus 34:14)
2. "Thou shalt make thee no molten gods." (Exodus 34:17)
3. "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt." (Exodus 34:18)
4a. "All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male." (Exodus 34:19)
4b. "But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty." (Exodus 34:20)
5. "Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest." (Exodus 34:21)
6. "And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end." (Exodus 34:22)
7. "Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel." (Exodus 34:23)
8. "Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning." (Exodus 34:25)
9. "The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God." (Exodus 34:26)
10. "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." (Exodus 34:26)
Not one biblical know-it-all that I've spoken to knows this.
Posted by: Rod | December 24, 2007 2:13 PM
I'd like to put in a good word for the Third Commandment. I think the Founders did indeed intend that people stop taking God's name in vain. When a government does it, people can get hurt. Let me explain...
This command probably has nothing to do with cursing. This is not a "free speech" issue.
God has been blamed for religious wars and inquisitions. God has been blamed for a whole lot of crap that today constitutes the body of work we call the Christian Right (aka, the Christian Wrong).
In this Third Commandment God is essentially saying, "Don't use my name for your cause. Don't exploit people using my name."
Huckabee is doing that, albeit quite cleverly. Dubya has done it as well and look where we are now.
I don't care who said it: "When fascism comes, it will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
Ed Brayton does the Lord's work -- he blogs the Third Commandment -- when he pokes holes in those who profess to be Christians, but use God to advance their personal, financial, or social goals as a matter of course.
Posted by: Jim Babka | December 24, 2007 2:15 PM
Jim Babka, I read the 3rd commandment more narrowly, as simply a directive against sorcery. I see Deuteronomy 5:11 like this:
My understanding is that the ancients were into magic in a big way. When they cast a spell, they weaved the name of a god into it to make it effective. I know of at least one ancient magical spell which invoked Yahweh. Couldn't it be, then, that this commandment merely forbids the use of the holy name "Yahweh" when casting magic?
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | December 24, 2007 3:40 PM
Even the implied premise of the claim (it is a good thing that the Ten Commandments are the foundation for the laws of America) is ridiculous. If all ten of the commandments were the laws of the land, America would clearly be a theocratic country.
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 24, 2007 3:48 PM
OK! I only boiled a baby sheep in it's mama's milk one time! Cheesh!
Posted by: dale | December 24, 2007 3:52 PM
Jim Babka wrote:
Can I quote you when I die? :)
Merry Christmas, my friend.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 24, 2007 3:52 PM
I'd like to protest Ed's heathen numbering of the ten commandments. 1 and 2 are the same commandment, and 9 and 10 should be split into the seaparate categories of coveting thy neighbor's wife, which is about sex and therefore dirty, and coveting his other stuff, which is just greedy.
This is why we can't have a Baptist minister president. I'd hate to think what he'd do with the seven deadly sins!
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | December 24, 2007 4:13 PM
Let me put in a good word for the 3rd in a historical context. The proper translation would be "do not use the name of the Lord falsely" -- Don't use it as a false or vain oath. That's a clear prohibition about saying something when you're lying about it. That's the core of contract making. I could give you this seed, but how do I know I will get that cut of your harvest as you claim. Oh, you swear to God. -- Okay, you wouldn't say that just willy-nilly. I think the third commandment would perhaps be the most useful in a bronze age context. Now though, the state is a bit better and contract enforcing is well done.
Secondly, the 9th isn't really perjury or lying. It's a crime we don't have anymore because our system is better on account of the 6th amendment. The crime is accusing your neighbor of a crime. In a guilty until innocent system this is hard to fight. Call a person a witch and they have a big hole to dig themselves out of. The closest we have is accusing somebody of child molestation which even when cleared would stigmatize. Hammerapi's code had a number of such provisions. If you accuse somebody who proves their innocence you pay for their crime. We see this application commonly in the Bible. For example, if a son in law accuses you of providing your daughter to him while she was not a virgin if you cannot provide the bloody marriage sheets you will be killed. However, if you can, he will be punished for the accusation. Basically, in a guilty until innocent system, the 9th commandment is tort reform.
Posted by: Tatarize | December 24, 2007 4:24 PM
NM: "Too bad Colbert's on hiatus, but he's already covered that one."
If he's so smart, why doesn't he write his own material, like Monty Python did?
...
Michael Suttkus, II: "I can't agree with you here, Ed. Our society condones murder situationally, as do most societies."
MOST societes don't accept murder, ever.
Posted by: Lassi Hippeläinen | December 24, 2007 7:06 PM
Not to mention fraud, false advertising, and all sorts of other contract violations & misrepresentations for material gain. (Okay, maybe community standards are different in Michigan...)
Lots of Believers will be happy to inform you - if you're, say, an anti-war protester - that #5 (by the Protestant numbering) is about "murder", not all kinds of killing but just those disallowed by whatever authority prevails (only Hebrew-cide, by some accounts). They are not so happy to hear that this qualification makes this commandment redundant ("this is a rule against breaking a rule").
Very few Believers will thank you for reminding them that it is a direct violation of their God's orders for them to take a two-day weekend.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 24, 2007 7:16 PM
I've heard interpretations that group 6, 7, 8, and 9 together, in the sense that the Hebrew language didn't have any punctuation marks, and they could all be the same sentence. What you have left is "Don't murder your neighbor, don't commit adultery against your neighbor, don't steal from your neighbor, and don't bear false witness against your neighbor. I'm sure that in the bronze-age Middle East, "your neighbor" would mean only your local clan, maybe even only your family.
And although Rod is correct in the only reference to "The Ten Commandments" in the KJV is in Exodus 34, one of the chapters of Numbers indicates that the "usual" ten are the ones the Hebrews are REALLY supposted to follow.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | December 24, 2007 8:20 PM
I was posting a bit about this based on Ed bringing it up again, and was thinking a little about the second set of commandments (the only ones actually called "the" ten).
My conclusion was that we should totally support the movement to post the real Ten Commandments in public schools. Kids have to know that what the creator and ruler of the universe desires, perhaps more than anything else, is offerings of fresh fruit.
And (a la the South Park episode) macaroni pictures. And let us glue paper plates together with beans inside so when you shake them they make rattling noises.
Posted by: Bad | December 24, 2007 8:20 PM
"one of the chapters of Numbers indicates that the "usual" ten are the ones the Hebrews are REALLY supposted to follow."
Really? I'd like to see that passage, because for the second set of ten, God makes pretty darn clear that these are the ones on which his whole covenant with the Israelites is founded.
Posted by: Bad | December 24, 2007 8:22 PM
Bad,
I read that in Slate's series of Blogging the Bible, run either last year or earlier this year. I didn't bother checking it myself, because it's just not an argument I'm all that invested in. But, now that you've challenged it, I'll just check it out--I'm slow, and it's Christmas Eve, so I hope you don't mind waiting a little while for me to look it up.
Thanks.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | December 24, 2007 8:27 PM
Non Sequitor said this as well (and said it well): http://www.aboutjws.info/scratch/nq070911.gif
Posted by: Joe Shelby | December 24, 2007 8:29 PM
I'm no Bible scholar or theologian, but it's always seemed to me that Tatarize's interpretation of #9 is right - it's about falsely accusing, not about lying in a general sense.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | December 24, 2007 8:48 PM
If he's so smart, why doesn't he write his own material, like Monty Python did?
Quality control.
Pythons spent months working out the material before hitting the studio with it. Life of Brian went through three writing sessions before the material was strong enough to be ready to film.
A comic writer probably produces, on average, about 5 minutes of good material a day, no matter how good he is. This is true for most creative arts - a composer of the skill of Howard Shore, for example, still only could write about 2-5 minutes of fully orchestrated score a day for Lord of the Rings. A lot of time for any composer is throwing ideas out that have no potential for development or develop in the wrong direction for the intent of the piece.
George Carlin, who does write all his own stuff, says he writes reams and reams of material, most of it junk, and whittles it down to just the best hour and takes a very well-rehearsed show on the road every year (along with half an hour of older material for the die-hard fans).
So yeah, Colbert could write all of his own stuff, but the amount of cruft that couldn't be rewritten for lack of time (or simply didn't have enough potential in it to be rewritten) would overwhelm the viewers impression of the show and totally hide that good 5 minutes that was hidden in there.
Python did many things, but writing an entire half hour of material per day for 200+ days a year and have it all be good is not one of them. I would never expect anybody to have that rate of success.
Now, Stewart and Colbert don't just to go writing a days worth of stuff a week and produce a weekly show during the strike? Well, the timeliness of the material would mean that quite a bit of the show would already be out of date - to have a weekly show on current events still be relevant is a very different task from having a daily show. Ask 60 Minutes...
Posted by: Joe Shelby | December 24, 2007 8:52 PM
How stupid are we. Doesn't anybody realize it all began in Hollywood.
In l956, months before director Cecil B. DeMille's epic film "The Ten Commandments" opened across the country, DeMille drummed up publicity for the film by donating replicas of his movie version of the ten commandments to courthouses across the country.
It was a publicity stunt. Don't ya get it?
These are not god's commandments. They are Cecil B. DeMille's
The religious right's advocates are fighting for Cecil B. DeMille's commandments. Perhaps they should bend their knees and worship the god DeMille.
Thimk people. Thimk!
Marilyn LaCourt
Posted by: Marilyn LaCourt | December 24, 2007 9:07 PM
"I believe adultery is still on the books in some states as illegal. In those states where it isn't, I don't believe it is because of a constitutional challenge, although I may be wrong. Lying can carry civil penalties in some cases such as lying in a business transaction."
Posted by: soboco
In addition, laws regulating marriage and who can have sex with whom when are a feature of all cultures.
Posted by: Barry | December 24, 2007 10:25 PM
Just a quick comment - several posters have used the words "murder" and "killing" as if they were synonyms. They aren't. Michael Suttkus, for instance says that "Our society condones murder situationally, as do most societies." This is incorrect. The situations that Michael lists are not murder, they are legally justified killings. Murder is the *unlawful* taking of human life, not any killing at all. All societies ban murder, and all societies have situations (such as personal defense, criminal proceedings, or military actions, among others) where killing is allowed (or required.) These are not murder, since they are not unlawful. Confusing the two concepts just muddles the discussion.
Posted by: Chris Clayton | December 24, 2007 10:33 PM
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." -James Madison 'Father of the Constitution'
Posted by: Brent Sherrod | December 24, 2007 10:41 PM
Brent Sherrod wrote:
You apparently haven't been reading this site long enough. This is a fake quote, never said by Madison, and it has been debunked here time and time again. It is one of about a dozen fake quotations that are circulated among the religious right. Quoting it here will only get you laughed at.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 24, 2007 10:44 PM
Bad,
Thanks for your patience in this matter--I just looked it up, and it was Deuteronomy, Chapter 5, not Numbers, that indicates the set in Exodus 20, not Exodus 34, is the real ten commnandments. Sorry for the mixup--as I said, it was a second-hand accounting (Slate's Blogging the Bible series with David Plotz) and I didn't have any strong investments in the argument.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | December 24, 2007 11:49 PM
Ed Brayton wrote:
Ed, if you are so talented that you can quote anyone once you've died, I will be quite honored if the person you chose to quote was me!
Merry Christmas to you too.
Posted by: Jim Babka | December 25, 2007 12:21 AM
Donna said: "No one actually believes the 10 commandments are the foundation of our laws in the US. It's propaganda pure and simple."
Actually, most Americans believe this, even some educated Americans do. It's one of those things most people never even think about, they just accept it as true because someone said it was true.
Posted by: Dale | December 25, 2007 12:21 AM
Joe Shelby -
You forgot to mention that Monty Python was written as a team effort, probably with a similar number of writers, who just happened to all appear on screen.
And Colbert is fucking brilliant Lassi. Have you ever read his books? Or seen the material he is solely responsible for? Just because he can't manage to write a brilliant show on a daily basis, does not mean he isn't smart. No one has ever managed to write their own show, day in and day out.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 25, 2007 1:00 AM
About that first commandment. Please note that it says nothing about having any gods after Him. As long as He gets to be first who or whatever else you worship, venerate, or adore after him is just fine.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | December 25, 2007 1:20 AM
Not only is the First Commandment unconstitutional, it is also, if read carefully, inconsistent with monotheism. You can only put another god before YHWH if there are other gods. This commandment is surely a residue of polytheism, urging us to give pride of place to the volcano god.
Posted by: Bill Poser | December 25, 2007 4:22 AM
Not only is it inconsistent with theism, it's markedly anti-trinitarian.
"I am The Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me." -- That doesn't describe Jesus, that's Yahweh. That's one of the reasons Isaac Newton was an Arian rather than a trinitarian. He thought accepting Jesus as God was blasphemy.
Posted by: Tatarize | December 25, 2007 4:33 AM
This is not the real Ten Commandments.
I agree with everything said here, but people should know that the real commandments have some extremely peculiar stuff in them that is not only unconstitutional but straight-up ridiculous.
Posted by: Sidian M.S. Jones | December 25, 2007 5:31 AM
For clarification of these issues (which is the real set, etc.) you should ask candidate Huckabee.
I'd like some other details, too. For example, which commandment(s) is the basis for a law establishing a 55mph speed limit? Which one(s) allows the government to allocate frequencies in the radio band? Which require/allow us to pay any attention to what a bunch of Iowans think on a particular January evening? Which is the basis for a government headed by an executive elected by the people and for whom there shall be no religious qualification?
Inquiring minds want to know -- Ask the Huckster!
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | December 25, 2007 5:34 AM
Looks like Huckaby is right and you are wrong. His reasoning is not that the 10 Comm. are equivalent to legal systems, but that they are "the basis." This means that they are the moral/legal grounding. Even a casual reading of the Declaration of Independence, the legal document which established the grounds for the revolution, it looks like God was "the basis." http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
If Huck tries force his religious views on everyone, that is a big problem. But his statement about the 10 C's being the basis of law seems completely reasonable, at least in US history.
Posted by: guy from rio | December 25, 2007 8:01 AM
Posted by: brtkrbzhnv | December 25, 2007 8:25 AM
Oops. I wanted to write this:
Why would it be unconstitutional to have laws against certain kinds of breach of contract?Posted by: brtkrbzhnv | December 25, 2007 8:26 AM
Baloney.
The fact that 7 out of 10 of the laws are not only not U.S. law but are against U.S. law is telling. Something which is unconstitutional cannot be the basis of US law, since the Constitution is the basis of US law. The remainder are laws you can find in pretty much any culture regardless of whatever faith you hold or none at all, so can hardly be used to support the notion that the 10C's were any unique basis.
Maybe you should be less casual. The DoI talks of Natures God and a generic creation or divine providence. A 'god' who endows people with unalienable rights. That doesn't sound like the Christian God of Huckabee to me. Where in "Huck"'s Bible does it talk about God giving unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
It's wrong for one thing, and shows an appaling ignorance of his own country's history.
And I thought "Huck" wanted to be President of the United States. Why is then talking like he only wants to be President of Some Christians of the United States?
Posted by: Dave S. | December 25, 2007 8:27 AM
I'll grant you that the Big 10 didn't make it across into the Constitution, but most of them were firmly ensconced in Colonial law, and continued in force until well after the adoption. South Carolina still has blue laws protecting the Sabbath; NC still considers adultery a tort. The fact that most of it is no longer consonent with constitutional interpretation is interesting, but essentially irrelevant to Huck's claim. The state's police power did not come under Federal scrutiny until the early 20th Century, and until then Exodus was riding high. Huck is right on this one.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 25, 2007 9:35 AM
This looks like the basis of a good question for any future debates or campaign events that Huck engages in. Questioners might also get Mitt's opinion as well.
Posted by: Phred22 | December 25, 2007 10:16 AM
guy from rio wrote:
Which is, of course, vague enough to mean almost anything - but not the reality of this situation. The grounding of our legal system is the US Constitution, which does not mention the ten commandments, the Bible or Christian theology at all. And that constitution not only is not based upon the ten commandments, it quite clearly forbids at least 7 of those 10 commandments from being made into laws at all. The phrase "is the basis of" or "is the legal and moral grounding for" cannot reasonably stretched to mean "makes most of it unconstitutional."
Perhaps a reading a little less casual and a little more contextual is in order here. The fact that it mentions "Nature's God" as the grounding of our unalienable rights does not mean that the ten commandments were the basis of our laws in any way. The Declaration was written in a manner required to satisfy a group of men with a range of views on religious matters that ranged from purely deistic to theistic rationalist to liberal Christian to conservative Christian. The group included everything from those who believed the Bible to be the infallible word of God to those who believed that the Bible was an absurd collection of myths. Jefferson, in writing the document, and John Adams and Ben Franklin, in editing it, had to find a terminology that could be agreed upon by all those groups. The references to a deity in the Declaration are all made in what we might call the "lowest common denominator" of deistic language - "nature's god" and "divine providence" - because all parties could at least agree on that minimal nature of God.
The notion that those references must mean the Biblical God is disproven by Jefferson alone, who rejected the Biblical conception of God as "cruel, capricious, vindictive and unjust." It's disproven still further by the fact that there is not a single verse in the Bible that contains any concept of unalienable rights, particularly any right of religious freedom or freedom of conscience; quite the contrary, there are innumerable verses that destroy that concept by ordering the death of those who do not worship the One True God. If one believes that the God of the Bible endorses the concept of natural, unalienable rights they will find precious little to support that notion in the Bible itself.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 25, 2007 10:34 AM
kehrsam wrote:
But those laws were colonial, as you say, based upon English common law that was instituted under the royal system that we threw off and rejected when this nation was founded. The Constitution, and the very notion of a government that protects natural rights rather than the divine right of kings, is an explicit rejection of such laws. That the political necessity of a limited Federal government meant that some of those laws would carry on in some of the states does not diminish that reality at all. This is not simply a matter of a current interpretation of the constitution being inconsistent with the imposition of such laws; that current application of the Constitution is the logical and inevitable result of the natural rights philosophy that truly IS the basis of our legal system.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 25, 2007 10:41 AM
Let's not forget that the 10 Commandments are almost verbatim laws that appear in the Book of the Dead. Pretty sure Moses just went up to the mountaintop and wrote down what he remembered from a religion none of his followers practiced.
Posted by: Joe Camel | December 25, 2007 12:26 PM
I wonder which set of Ten Commandments Huckabee considers authoritative: the set found in Exodus 20, the set from Exodus 34, or the set in Deuteronomy 5? Or, and I think this less likely, the set that the Catholic Church uses?
Posted by: Tim | December 25, 2007 12:50 PM
Shawn: that seems telling in isolation, but then again, if you read the whole text, God does this sort of thing quite a lot, and says all sorts of different things each time. Furthermore, this recounting does not number them as "the" ten either. The ones that are named the ten really do, in context, look pretty darn important as well.
Again, neither of us really has much invested in this matter, but it's still interesting to note that the real Scriptures are nowhere near as clear and unconflicted as is often presented.
Posted by: Bad | December 25, 2007 2:41 PM
Chris Clayton: the point you make is important, but it's not quite that simple, since different people's conception of what "the" law is that matters differs. If a President takes office and legalizes the killing of gay people, plenty of people will call that murder regardless of its legal status. Likewise, plenty of people will call the genocidal actions of the Israelites murderous regardless of what holy book they ran around with claiming that it was all on the legal up and up.
Posted by: Bad | December 25, 2007 2:44 PM
"Why would it be unconstitutional to have laws against certain kinds of breach of contract?"
It's not unconstitutional to enforce a contract or breach of contract. That's why adultery is legal grounds for a divorce or annulment of marriage.
I think the extent to which anti-adultery laws are unconstitutional are the extent to which they have religion as their basis. For most of us, adultery is a simple breach of contract to be dealt with as the contract stipulates. To the religious crowd, adultery is the High Crime of vandalizing the twin Cornerstones of Civilization™ known as "marriage" and "the family unit," and thus should be punishable by prison and possibly death.
Posted by: AL | December 25, 2007 2:48 PM
As others have pointed out, the TCs are not a basis for our laws for the very obvious reason that most of them could never become law at all. However, with regard to the Declaration of Independence, I just wanted to point out a few things. First of all, in a discussion of what constitutes the basis of our legislation or the actions of our government, bringing up the Declaration is a red herring. The document is not binding on the operation of our government in any way. And that's a good thing too, because contrary to your too casual reading of it, leading you to believe the Declaration tries to "ground" our rights and laws with a god, the Declaration is really an elaborate justification for the Revolutionary War, in which it is asserted that the people have a right to overthrow their own governments. As you can see very trivially, the Declaration could not possibly be binding on our own government, as our government would not now or ever grant us this right.
Posted by: AL | December 25, 2007 3:10 PM
In essence this is a correct premise, Huck didn't say it was the basis of constitutional law. Any examination of our law and English common law [our foundation] will show many of our laws reflect the common view of the big 10 [examination will show these 10 are not THE 10 but that is another post] In truth the 10 were merely a restatement of much older legal codes - Hammurabi's laws being the most commonly used example.
Props to AL - good catch
=^. .^=
Posted by: J.C. | December 25, 2007 4:45 PM
Morality is only possible with a higher being. John Whitehead writes "If man cannot know, according to a higher law, what is just or right in a given situation, he cannot protest and criticize legitimately any particular course of action as unjust."
Religious people have a very good point. Without a god, or a revelation from him in some form, we have no means of building a legal system. Huckabee merely seems to be pointing that out. The ten commandments do not literally translate to the articles of american law, but in principle there are consistent similarities.
The ten commandments are a uniquely comprehensive collection of laws that fully summarize the fundamentals of good and evil. It is without a system of justice acknowledging these elements that a government fails to preserve itself.
Posted by: Andrew | December 25, 2007 4:58 PM
AL wrote:
I could not disagree more. The Declaration, I and many others argue, part of the organic law. Specifically, it should be used by the courts as a prism through which to interpret the provisions of the Constitution. The Declaration lays out the underlying natural rights philosophy that underlies the very notion of a liberal democracy, the notion that rights precede government and that governments are instituted, properly, for the purpose of protecting those rights. This is the core premise of a limited, liberal republic.
This is a premise that is rejected by D'Souza (see the other thread at the top of this blog), as it is rejected by Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and other apologists for democratic authoritarianism. They do not believe in the notion that we have an inherent right to self-determination that may not justly be violated by any government, even one that is organized as a democracy. That is why D'Souza, in the post above, expresses his disapproval of the notion that we have "the freedom to live however you want as long as you don't harm others." But that is precisely what is meant by Jefferson's famous phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It is that notion of rightful liberty that the Declaration endorses, and it is the protection of that liberty that is the principle aim of government. Any law that violates that principles should be rejected by the courts as unconstitutional.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 25, 2007 5:06 PM
Andrew wrote:
Bullshit. Utter bullshit. I call this the "Simon says" theory of morality. The problem with this argument - one of them, anyway - is that it is no less subjective than the position it purports to attack. In the end it collapses down to the notion that whatever a being that can exact punishment upon us says is moral. But how does that logically follow? It presumes not only the existence of a supernatural being capable of such punishment, but also the existence of one who cares about morality. You have to prove that premise first before you "Simon says" claim should be taken seriously. Even if there is such a being, why would it logically follow that that being is moral in any sense of the word? Why would such a being even concern itself with moral questions? I see no reason to presume that it would. Ultimately, this is an untenable position unless you first prove that A) such a being exists; B) it takes an interest in what we do; and C) it cares about acting morally.
Frankly, the Bible doesn't show such a god at all. The God of the Bible does not act with moral consistency but with pettiness, jealousy, vindictiveness and capriciousness. The same God that allegedly declares that you shall not punish the sons for the sins of the father then turns around and allegedly declares, "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 then he does exactly that in the example of David and Bathsheba, striking down an infant for the sins of his parents. How is this any less subjective than any form of reason-based morality? "Do as I say, not what I do" does not a coherent moral system make.
Because you say so? I think many of the commandments are highly immoral. And the only possible response you have is "you didn't say Simon says" - i.e. "you don't have God telling you what morality is." But again, that presumes that you do; until you can establish that premise, your argument is utterly incoherent.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 25, 2007 5:24 PM
It's amazing to me how many times this needs to be repeated, but I have a one word counter: Euthyphro. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you've clearly given this matter little thought and you're simply expressing an uninformed opinion.
Posted by: Davis | December 25, 2007 6:18 PM
We seem to be drifting away from the actual topic here, which is whether Huckabee's claim that "The Ten Commandments form the basis of most of our laws" is accurate in any sense. Ed's contention is that, in the sense of the overall political climate created by the Declaration and Constitution, Huck is wrong.
I would respond that at the level most people encounter law, Huck is essentially right for the first 150+ years of the Republic. 90+ percent of cases still arise in state Courts, and for the overwhelming number of jurisdictions, most of the Big Ten were relevant for most of our history (I am not aware of any law against graven images later than the early Colonial period, however).
Even then, "Forming the basis" is not quite justified. Oliver Wendell Holmes famously managed to never reference Christianity in The Common Law, nor does he mention the Decalogue. The roots of English law are overwhelmingly Latin or German. The effect of the Decalogue can be traced to: 1) Laws of general application (all societies had laws against murder, theft, and adultery); or 2) The desire to placate the Church as a powerful interest in society. I understand where Huck is coming from, and what he is saying is not outrageous in the way Ed claims; the argument is a lot more nuanced that that, not that Huck appreciates the nuance, either.
To hit a couple of other quick links, for my take on natural law, rights, and a discussion on why they most certainly do not depend upon revelation, please see my series over at DuWayne's blog. It has probably all been pushed over to the second page by now.
http://debrayton.blogspot.com/
As for Euthyphro, I haven't read it in twenty years, but I seem to recall that the conclusion is a tautology: Piety is nothing more nor less than what human actions the gods approve of. I'm not sure how that informs the current discussion, Davis, but I welcome you expansion on the prior comment. Merry Christmas to all, and God bless.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 25, 2007 7:51 PM
I don't think it's relevant whether Huckabee's statement is accurate "in any sense", I think it's only relevant whether it's accurate in the sense that he meant it. My argument is simply that most of the commandments are clearly unconstitutional and contrary to the notion of religious liberty that is a core principle of our system. The fact that some states, prior to the 14th amendment, had some laws based upon some of those unconstitutional commandments, like blasphemy laws, is only a leftover from a colonial past that we rejected and only allowed because of the political necessity of delaying the imposition of natural rights on the states as well. Either way, they are absolutely contrary to natural rights philosophy and contrary to the written words of the Constitution.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 25, 2007 8:23 PM
Which ten though... I really had no idea that the Catholics had a different set of ten... Two prohibitions against coveting, and nothing about graven images...
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm
Posted by: Richard | December 25, 2007 8:40 PM
Ed: I think we're 95% in agreement here. The difference is that there is a legitimate argument to be made in favor of the "Ten Commandments as a basis for American law" argument, as opposed, for instance, to the complete absurdity of Huck's statement on biology.
Up until Texas v Johnson the vast majority of law could be classed as moral in nature. Holmes (no friend of organized religion) traced this to intrafamilial feuds, but frankly, the whole notion of crimes being offenses against the sovereign is an adoption of religious law (as noted by commenters above, the idea is already present in the Code of Hammurabi and other early legal Codes).
I don't support Huckabee, but his public pronouncements have been nowhere near as silly as those of Romney or Giuliani, at least so far. Give him some more time.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 25, 2007 9:04 PM
I always love the phrase "Morality is only possible with a higher being." as it is typically thrown about without knowing what the word morality is really about.
According to the dictionary, the term moral has Origin: 1300-50; ME L mōrālis, equiv. to mōr- (s. of mōs) usage, custom + -ālis -al.
So, if we are to play a bit of word replacement then, "Things that we have always done are only able to be understood if we assert that they come from some indescribable entity." Come on now people, we are better than this...
Posted by: R.J. Dyer | December 25, 2007 9:16 PM
The Ten Commandments are, without a doubt, one of the worst excuses for a "moral code" that has ever been proposed for that role. It turns my stomach every time I hear someone talking up the Ten. Especially a Christian -- they should know better. They have a much better, much simpler moral code contained in their own New Testament. It goes something like this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Posted by: Nemo | December 26, 2007 12:48 AM
Euthyphro is often rephrased in the form "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" (quote direct from Wikipedia). If something is moral because it comes from God, then God can change his mind and decide murder is ok after all. Most of us think murder (distinct from "killing") is wrong no matter what, so we fall into accepting that what is moral, is moral independent of God. Which means morals (and, to the extent to which they overlap, laws) do not require God for their existence.
Posted by: Davis | December 26, 2007 1:36 AM
And then there are people like Vox Day.
Posted by: Skemono | December 26, 2007 3:24 AM
"9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Some have interpreted this to be analagous to our perjury laws, but nothing in the text indicates that. It's talking about lying in general, not in a legal sense during court proceedings."
It isn't about lying in general, it's about bearing false witness against your neighbor.
Note that this would not cover lying about yourself without reference to others - e.g., if you are accused of a crime you actually committed, but claimed you did not, you'd be lying, but not bearing false witness against another unless it could be automatically inferred that if you didn't do it, they had to have done it. Similarly, you can claim that there is a "Social Security crisis" without violating this Commandment, even though it's a lie - and a harmful one, at that.
Making false accusations against people can have devastating consequences for the victim, and would be morally repugnant ih any culture.
Posted by: Avedon | December 26, 2007 9:07 AM
God isn't necessary for morality. Only common sense is. If you're going to forbid anything, you should have a reason. I raised my daughter fully aware of how easily a parent can slip into tyranny. (I always did hate the nonreason "I'm the parent that's why" b.s.) So I also raise her with the invitation to question any rule I made and demand a reason why (whether it was a do or a don't rule). I ate a few that I couldn't give a reason for when questioned and I was way generous with reasons. "Because that noise is giving me a headache" was reason enough in my book. If in charge, it's far too easy to become a tyrant. So, simply put, rules need to be solidly based in reason. That's one of the problems with God. He's the ultimate "because I say so, that's why." Not good enough.
And don't get me started on the purely egotistical golden rule. Yes, there's certain things we all have in common wherein we'd all liked to be treated the same. I was going to say such as not being killed but then I thought of situations where that might not be true. Perhaps lying is a better example; we all want to be able to depend on one another's word. But I can think of examples there where some people simply might not want to know the truth, like the wife who looks the other way when her husband cheats. The golden rule presumes that whatever you want is always what the other guy wants and this might not be the case.
Posted by: Donna | December 26, 2007 10:16 AM
The point of the golden rule is that the true foundation of morality is empathy. You can easily come up with situations where it wouldn't literally apply, but I think that misses the point. None of the proposed alternatives I've seen, like "do unto others as they would have you do unto them", are as elegant in capturing the idea. How do we know what others would have us do unto them? Well, they could tell us. But what if they don't have the opportunity? Or what if they do, but they're lying (against their own interests -- say, because they're bowing to pressure or convention)? So you put yourself in their place: "If it were me, what would I want?" It's not a guaranteed answer, but it's at least a good place to start.
Posted by: Nemo | December 26, 2007 2:52 PM
Um Huckabee didn't claim that most of the commandments are represented by U.S. laws. He claimed that most U.S. laws are based on the ten commandments. So, going by Ed's analysis, if