Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This time in Weston, Ohio, where a county sheriff pretty clearly crossed the line. The local paper reports:
The children attending Weston Church of Christ's Vacation Bible School recently have learned "there are rules, and then there are Rules."Wood County Sheriff Mark Wasylyshyn was the guest speaker from the community on one night of the school, and he spoke to two classes, second and third graders, plus fourth through eighth grade students.
The problem is that he did this in his uniform, not as a private citizen but as a government official. And not only did he endorse Christianity, this law enforcement officer told the children that he prefers Biblical laws to the laws he is bound to enforce:
"Those same 10 rules are in this book," the sheriff said, showing a copy of the Ohio Revised Code. He noted how simple it would be if society had just God's 10 rules. A deputy would pull a driver over to the side of the road and inform the driver which commandment he or she had broken. "It'd be real simple."He marveled in both classes that God "in all his wonder was able to do it with 10 rules. I, as sheriff of the county, don't know every single one of these rules." In the upper grade classroom he looked in the O.R.C. book and found the last law had number 5743.112.
"If you follow the 10 Commandments, you're going to have this covered, doing the right thing with other people," he told the older students. "I'd rather learn the 10 Commandments than this book."
The sheriff handed out a plastic badge to each of the younger children, along with a New Testament supplied by the church. The older children already had Bibles but did take badges.
Perhaps it should also be noted that the sheriff is also woefully ignorant. The Bible contains hundreds of laws, not just the ten commandments. And most of those laws are absolutely unenforceable by the sheriff or his deputies. Not only did he violate the first amendment, he spread ignorance as well.
Politics
Comments
Excuse me sir, but you drive like someone who covets his neighbour's ox. And what is that dangling from your rear-view mirror...is that an idol?
Posted by: Dave S. | June 25, 2008 9:25 AM
"The Bible contains hundreds of laws, not just the ten commandments. And most of those laws are absolutely unenforceable by the sheriff or his deputies."
I would love to see this guy try and enforce the 613 commandments in the Old Testament. It would make life so much simpler if you could burst into someone's house with a loaded gun saying "I caught you eating shellfish!! Hand over the shrimp and no one gets hurt!" And life would certainly be a lot simpler if we could kill off everyone who sassed their parents.
Posted by: scicurious | June 25, 2008 9:40 AM
So failing to signal when changing lanes violates which commandment?
Posted by: James Hanley | June 25, 2008 9:46 AM
Isn't one of those 10 something about bearing false witness? Lets see, he broke his oath to uphold the law by preaching in uniform. He lied to these children in at least three ways I can identify. It's a good thing for him we don't have Biblical law. Otherwise he could be dead by now (Acts 5:5) and his brother forced to impregnate his widow(Deut. 25:5).
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 25, 2008 9:51 AM
Thou shalt no talk one thine's cell phone whilst driving.
I think I read that in the back somewhere.
Posted by: llDayo | June 25, 2008 9:55 AM
If crazies believe that homosexuality endangers the survival of the species, that one about stoning insolent children to death would kill us off entirely within a couple of generations.
Posted by: Matthew | June 25, 2008 10:01 AM
I've never understood why Christians seem to think the ten commandments are necessary and sufficient. Most especially sufficient. After all, they don't cover rape, child abuse, or slavery. You'd think those three would make most modern people's top 10 of "Bad Things".
Yes, yes, I know, I'm kidding myself if I expect modern Christians to be rational or modern.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | June 25, 2008 10:08 AM
At least he did this at the Weston Church of Christ's Vacation Bible School.
I mean, it's not like he did any damage to a child's mind. These children are already lost.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | June 25, 2008 10:10 AM
Thou shall not drive with the speed of the tortoise in the lane of leftness. Those who do shall be subjected to close following closeness, raising of the central digit of a hand and sounding of the bugles.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 25, 2008 10:11 AM
"Let's see, you were driving 165 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood. Nothing wrong with that. You have no driver's licence. Nothing wrong with that. You have a blood alcohol content of .32. Nothing wrong with that. You wrecked fourteen cars on this street alone, not to mention the rest of the neighborhood. Nothing wrong with that. You drove over five front yards, two motorcycles and Mrs. Henderson's prize rose bushes. Nothing wrong with that. But the five year old you hit is going to survive, so you didn't murder anyone, lie to anyone, sleep with anyone's wife and you're wearing a cross, so I guess you're off the hook."
Yeah, I'd want to live there.
Posted by: ShadowWalkyr | June 25, 2008 10:16 AM
Lo, verily shalt thy mule or camel not travel in excess of the speed clearly posted by the roadside, and thou shalt have thy mule or camel inspected yearly lest it not comply with the Lord's Holy Emission Standards. For I am the Lord, and my justice shall be meted out upon thy children for seven generations of stiff traffic fines.
Posted by: Wes | June 25, 2008 10:25 AM
The thing that bothers me the most, is the implication that somewhere in there this county sheriff seems to be suggesting he would like it to be part of his job to enforce all of the biblical 10 Commandments. Including the first three that define "man's relation to God". A goverment employee wants to be in the position where he inforces a person's relationship with God...
...and that's why there's a line in the first place!
Posted by: SpotWeld | June 25, 2008 10:40 AM
A simple moral law is common to most faith traditions found today. That law was summarized by Rabbi Ben Hillel, a contemporary of Jesus, as follows: What you find hateful, do not do to another. That is the whole of the law; the rest is commentary.
Child abuse and crimes like that are generally considered to violate the commandment against stealing, if we're using the Judeo-Christian system, since it steals the human dignity from the child. Slavery would probably fall into the same pigeon hole.
I'm still not sure about speeding, but recklessness in general violates a few of the 10 Commandments. For example, your "father and mother" (a.k.a., your elders, the wise teachers of your youth, and by extension, lawmakers) are dishonored when you do things that teachers have told you not to do. In addition, speeding may place people's lives in danger, which not only violates the commandment against stealing (taking the security away from other people's lives) but also, potentially, the commandment against murder, which can be extended to include things which injure others.
Posted by: Paul Katula | June 25, 2008 10:49 AM
I often dream of attending some sort of community forum and having some bible-thumping politician spout off about how the Constitution and American law is premised on the 10 commandments, and I ask them to provide a single example of a law or Constituional principle based on the 1st commandment...
Posted by: slpage | June 25, 2008 10:55 AM
You're quite right that it looks grim for the kids in the CoC, Gingerbaker, but there is hope: I'm in recovery from the Church of Christ. Only took me twenty years or so ;-)
Seriously, though, it was stunts like the sheriff pulled that led me to be skeptical of the blather from the pulpit. A sufficiently curious kid might try to find a copy of the O.R.C. book and attempt to find the ten commandments within. Then that kid might discover that there is more than one set of commandments, and so on and so forth until it all falls apart. Maybe. Who knows.
Skepticism for that kid might lead to a softened version of his or her faith, or agnosticsm or full-blown rabid atheism. But learning the lesson that there is no such thing as infallibility when it comes to people or scripture can hardly be a bad thing.
Posted by: lonelyShoes | June 25, 2008 11:02 AM
Or it could violate the commandment against murder, because you murder the child's free spirit. Or it could violate the commandment against idolatry, because you objectify the child. Or it could be construed as adultery, because by sexually abusing a child you cheat on your spouse. Or it could violate the commandment against coveting your neighbor's oxen, because your closest neighbor is your child and you covet his or her innocence.
This is why I think scriptural hermeneutics are vacuous. With a little creativity and complete avoidance of any standards of clarity or objectivity, you can make anything say anything you want it to say.
Posted by: Wes | June 25, 2008 11:15 AM
Paul Katula:
"Child abuse and crimes like that are generally considered to violate the commandment against stealing, if we're using the Judeo-Christian system, since it steals the human dignity from the child. Slavery would probably fall into the same pigeon hole.
I'm still not sure about speeding, but recklessness in general violates a few of the 10 Commandments. For example, your "father and mother" (a.k.a., your elders, the wise teachers of your youth, and by extension, lawmakers) are dishonored when you do things that teachers have told you not to do. In addition, speeding may place people's lives in danger, which not only violates the commandment against stealing (taking the security away from other people's lives) but also, potentially, the commandment against murder, which can be extended to include things which injure others."
Ahh, eisigesis. Where would Christians be without it? You know, the whole point of having well-written and codified laws is to remove as much interpretive flexibility as possible. That's why we still remember Hammurabi's name. Saying that that you can weasel some general outlines into a structure of law isn't hard; but having such a system leaves too much room for corruption and special pleading.
I'd think God could do better.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | June 25, 2008 11:41 AM
Paul Katula:
Ahh, eisigesis. Where would Christians be without it? You know, the whole point of having well-written and codified laws is to remove as much interpretive flexibility as possible. That's why we still remember Hammurabi's name. Saying that that you can weasel some general outlines into a structure of law isn't hard; but having such a system leaves too much room for corruption and special pleading.
I'd think God could do better.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | June 25, 2008 11:47 AM
I'm with Wes on this one. I've never heard of anything in the Bible that references, or would even respect, human "dignity." The Old Testament is one long poem to how really swell JHVH is, and, boy, we really don't want Him angry at us, no sir.
Human dignity surfaced sometime in the 1600s. There was this place in Italy where it flourished, but I don't think it was near the Vatican.
Posted by: jonathan | June 25, 2008 11:53 AM
The wouldn't be a need for courts or a correction system, either. Sheriff Whatchamacallit left out the best part of the whole deal:
"A deputy would pull a driver over to the side of the road and inform the driver which commandment he or she had broken. Then, the deputy would commandeer passers-by to participate in an on-the-spot stoning. 'It'd be real simple.'"
In these troubled times of high prices and cash-strapped state budgets, can we afford NOT to go biblical?
Posted by: Hugh | June 25, 2008 11:57 AM
You can have my shellfish when you can take it from my cold, dead hands! There's no such thing as too much shrimp, or crab, or lobster! And one of my favorite summer shows is "Deadliest Catch!"
Seriously, which commandment am I breaking when I'm speeding-like I did this morning doing 80 in a 55 zone to keep steady with traffic?
You shall not steal and you shall not kill are the only two I see that are enforcible all the time-with bearing false witness being purgury when giving testimony or a statement to police. And maybe the adultery one if that is the grounds for a divorce.
Honor your father and mother-I've been in our local juvie center (it is the one showcased on MTV's "Juvies") and it was full enough without enforcing this one.
Graven images: My church is turning a courtyard into a prayer garden. We just purchased a statue of Jesus with two children gathered around him. Guess the Griffith police will be beating on my door any day. Although they'll arrest my buddy, Father Mens, before me-those Catholics and their statues of *gasp* Mary!
Do not use God's name in vain. I'd be in jail for that one-and yes, I am a pastor; but I am human first.
And coveting-let's put all of Madison Ave. in jail, because all our advertising is based on the premise of coveting.And trust me I could break the fifth commandment with a few of those advertisers for the ideas they place in my kids' heads of things they "need."
And Gingerbaker-you'll be the first whose *ss will be dragged out of bed on Sunday morning and thrown into the slammer;-)
Gingerbaker and lonleyshoes, I also see our VBS coming up soon as a great way to get kids active for a week during their summer vacation. Their parents bring them here knowing that we are going to teach them about God and Christ. And I'm not going to secretly baptize them or give them a lobotomy while they are in the church. I plant seeds; it's up to the family to choose to do the rest.
And I certainly have no plans to have Chief Govert speak at our VBS. Don't know what a police officer would have to do with "Rainforest Adventure" anyway.
Finally Rev. BigDumbChimp, don't EVER move to the Twin Cities. That is how they drive there-slow in the left lane and passing/speeding in the center and right hand lanes. And no amount of honking/jesturing/flashing of headlights, etc. will make them change. Trust me, I tried!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 25, 2008 12:57 PM
Jumping into the discussion a bit late here, but someone remind me please....
Exactly which commandment prohibits driving with broken tail lights, or an overly loud exhaust system, or doing a rolling stop?
Posted by: ZacharySmith | June 25, 2008 12:59 PM
Loud exhaust system? The tenth (at least the way Lutherans have them numbered): Do not covet your neighbor's manservant, or maidservant, or wife, or donkey, or ANYTHING that is your neighbors....like SLEEP!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 25, 2008 1:08 PM
"I mean, they just made stuff up, you know. I'm supposed to have given them five sacred laws. Five sacred laws! I've broken four of them meself. I'd have broken the fifth, but there's no sheep on board."
-Lister, Red Dwarf, upon learning he's God (sort of)
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 25, 2008 1:19 PM
Christian law... he must be joking.
Posted by: JStein | June 25, 2008 1:22 PM
The fourth commandment: "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:"
Well, that outlaws photo ID, dead presidents on currency, all the pictorial traffic signs (deer crossing, for example), any image on any emblem (which takes care of crosses on city emblems), and everything on billboards except for print.
The ten commandments do not prohibit such things as kidnapping the county sheriff, locking him in a cage, torturing him, flinging feces at him, spraying him with cold water, zapping him with a Taser, spraying him with pepper spray, or cutting out his tongue.
I'm liking this a lot!
Posted by: Bill the Cat | June 25, 2008 1:56 PM
Ohio has a law prohibiting the Sheriff from appearing at private events in uniform? I agree it's not a good idea, but calling his actions "illegal" is either hyperbole or defamation.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 25, 2008 2:04 PM
Rev. AJB: Sounds like your VBS is worlds apart from those of my youth. If I had kids, I'd have no qualms about sending them to your VBS, and I'm one o' them evil atheists. :-) Seeds are cool, it's the forced grafts that aren't.
Posted by: lonelyShoes | June 25, 2008 2:09 PM
Paul Katula,
Child abuse ~= Stealing?
Can you explain this a bit more for me? For me, stealing implies that the stealer gains something while the victim loses something, that "something" usually being the same thing for both stealer and victim. Does a child abuser / torturer gain the victim's dignity?
While I can see the argument of the "stealer" gaining enjoyment from the victim's suffering, what if the abuse was done from indifference to the victim? The abuser gains nothing in particular (nor has the intent to) while the victim suffers loss. The Golden Rule could be applied here, of course, but the broad Golden Rule is not stated in the specific 10 Commandments.
For example, how would you apply the 10 Commandments to a parent's neglect of his/her own child? The child belongs to the parent, so there is no stealing going on. The "honor thy father and mother" commandment does not imply the child gets any honor in return. The "thou shall not murder/kill" would not apply as long as the child is barely surviving.
Actually, if some caring person comes by to try and help the child, they may be accused of "stealing" the child's affection from his/her parents. Even if the parent beats the child, the "honor thy father and mother" commandment prevents the child from retaliating or disobeying the parent to run away. Guess the child's SOL until disfunctional adulthood.
As for applying the "honor thy father and mother" commandment to enforcement of laws like speeding and such, it only leads to the question of which Commandments are being used by lawmakers to justify those very laws. By the way you are applying it, any arbritrary law commanded by a nutcase in charge would be justified.
And how is security a thing that can be stolen? Stealing another person's shield or shutting off their alarm system so that you can sneak in safely? Yes, I can see that. But speeding in a car? What is the driver gaining from the victims here? I fail to see how negligence translates to stealing. In fact, destruction of property in general does not seem to be covered by the 10 Commandments.
While the Golden Rule is pretty powerful in its broadness and applicability to almost any situation, the problem is that the officer says that it is the 10 Commandments (which do not imply the Golden Rule in any broad sense) that are enough for all of morality.
Posted by: Monimonika | June 25, 2008 2:22 PM
He was not merely appearing at a private event in uniform. He was actively preaching. My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that while in uniform a police officer is a representative of the government, even if they're "off duty" at the time. (He was off duty at the time, right?) That is the purpose of the uniform, to identify him as an agent of the state. Therefore he cannot legally endorse a religion while in uniform.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 25, 2008 3:26 PM
When it comes to the question of whether our nation is founded in the Ten Commandments, one need only look at the first entry of that list, and the first entry of the Bill of Rights.
The First Commandment decrees death for apostates; the First Amendment prohibits that sentence being carried out.
There's no way that the first three commandments could be in any American statute, since each would clearly violate the First Amendment.
Posted by: Cooper | June 25, 2008 3:30 PM
If he cannot uphold the secular laws that he was sworn to uphold, his stupid ass needs to be fired.
Don't preach on taxpayer time, jerk! Did you break the commandment to not lie when you swore to uphold the law, Wasylyshyn?
Posted by: Kristine | June 25, 2008 3:48 PM
Well, if it's a girl who's abused, he's stolen her value from her father, but as long as he can marry her, no problem. If it's a boy ... well, nothing in the Big Ten, so that's okay.
And they DO address slavery - it's okay. Otherwise, how would your neighbor have a slave you could covet?
Remember when that congressman, Lynn Westmoreland, was on Colbert, arguing that the 10 Commandments should be posted in government buildings? Colbert then asked why the 10 Commandments - because "if we are totally without them," Westmoreland explained earnestly, "we may lose the sense of our direction."
Colbert then asked him what they were. "What are all of 'em?" "Yes." "You want me to name them all?" "Yes." "All ten of them?" Colbert raised his fists in front for a count-off. Westmoreland gulped and tried. "Don't murder." One finger up. "Don't steal." Another. "Don't lie." A third ...
And that was it. That was it.
"I can't name 'em all."
Posted by: The Ridger | June 25, 2008 7:00 PM
Abby: You need a citation for your assertion. The odd thing about the law with regard to Sheriffs is how little of it there is. Since historically, Sheriffs were the King's representatives, they were protected from almost all local oversight, and in most states that remains true to a remarkable degree today.
Since Ohio took its common law essentially from Pennsylvania (and hence from England), unless the Sheriff has been constrained by later statutes, he is free to do just about anything short of committing crimes.
As for the uniform, unless on administrative or other leave, officers are always on duty, at least technically. This is why law enforcement officers hired to provide security at private events are almost always in uniform.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 25, 2008 7:17 PM
I've noticed that. I've only found two slightly relevant stories. One was an officer who was dismissed for refusing to remove a cross shaped pin from the collar of his uniform. He challenged it in court. The Court ruled that he did not have a right to free speech or free religion with regard to altering his uniform. But that was a dress code violation, not specifically an endorsement issue. Interesting, but not really applicable here.
The other was an officer who was handing out copies of The Watchtower along with speeding tickets. He didn't even challenge his dismissal. So there isn't a court precedent. Plus he was clearly acting as a state agent at the time. So it doesn't really tell us anything about permissible conduct at a private event.
Man, you're really going to make me work for this one, aren't you? I'll keep digging and get back to you if I find anything. However, I still maintain that his actions were a violation of the establishment clause, even if I can't prove it... yet. ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 25, 2008 10:06 PM
Feel sorry for the poor employees.
Their Sheriff is a out of control.
They live in fear of not being Christian enough.
They are judged by the Sheriff and his administrative staff on a daily basis.
Posted by: Angel | June 25, 2008 10:16 PM