Magic City Morning Star

Advertising | RSS Feed | About Us 

Last Updated: Oct 13, 2013 - 12:38:22 AM 

An eclectic mix of news and information
Staff Login
Donate towards our web hosting bill!

Front Page 
  -- Local
  -- State
  -- National
  -- IRS News
  -- Win at Work
  -- History
  Tech Notes
  -- Comics
  -- R.P. BenDedek
  -- Kenneth Tellis
  -- M Stevens-David
  -- Down the Road
  Today in History
  -- Editor's Desk
  -- Guest Column
  -- Scheme of Things
  -- Michael Devolin
  -- Tom DeWeese
  -- Ed Feulner
  -- Jim Kouri
  -- Julie Smithson
  -- J. Grant Swank
  -- Doug Wrenn
  Agenda 21
  Book Reviews
  -- Old Embers

Web Directory Reviews
WDR Directory of Directories
Restore The Republic - The Home of the Freedom Movement!

Charles Cutter

The Godless Commandments
By Charles Cutter (
Mar 3, 2005 - 12:49:00 PM

Email this article
 Printer friendly page
Don’t covet your neighbor’s ox.

Does that truly sound like an issue worthy of an omnipotent deity, seeking to address the most vital moral issues human beings might face? Or does it sound like something that would be written by a class of property-owners seeking to protect their goods - and invoking common superstitious beliefs to buttress their decree?

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments on two cases relating to the posting of the Ten Commandments on government grounds. A recent poll showed that seventy-six percent of Americans support this religious display - a fact which played into the hands of Justice Antonin Scalia.

According to Scalia, the Ten Commandments constitute "a symbol that government authority comes from God…it is a profoundly religious message, but it’s shared by the vast majority of the people…It seems to me that the minority has to be tolerant of the majority’s view."

Frightening words from the land’s highest court. His issue, here, is not the law - not the U.S. Constitution - but simply the majority viewpoint. (Which, of course, he happens to share.)

In principle - but less and less in practice - our government is based on the general concept of majority rule with certain minimum protections provided for every citizen. The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits any "law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." People have a right to their religious beliefs, if so inclined, and the government will avoid entanglement.

But certain religious adherents - primarily the so-called "Religious Right" - don’t respect that wall between church and state. (At least not between their church and the state.) They want a right-leaning Supreme Court to vote against the Bill of Rights and push this government further into the hands of their god.

Let’s examine this majority rule issue from a different angle.

Imagine, for instance, that a majority of Americans favored something other than the Ten Commandments. Perhaps they began placing, on government buildings, large and explicit photos of an unclothed couple engaged in sexual intercourse. From the majority viewpoint, it could easily be argued that nudity was the natural state of humanity; that sexual coupling was the means of our very existence. Both nudity and sex, of course, preceded the existence of the Holy Bible.

Would Justice Scalia still declare, "It seems to be that the minority has to be tolerant of the majority’s view?"

Of course he wouldn’t, any more than he would have voted in favor of Al Gore if the electoral circumstances had been reversed in 2000’s Bush v. Gore case.

It’s not law, it’s ideology.

Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying, "It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to Infidelity."

Let’s investigate anyway.

There are numerous laws and punishments detailed in the Bible besides the Ten Commandments. If the Supreme Court rules to allow the display of the Decalogue on government property, let’s also insist that other such holy laws also be displayed.

For instance:

If a woman has lied to her husband about her virginity, "…they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die…" (Deuteronomy 22:13-21

Adultery’s another clear capital case: "…the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife…the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10)

If a man rapes a virgin woman who is neither married nor engaged, "…the man…shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife…" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

A woman forced, by law, to marry her rapist? Let’s throw that one up on the statehouse wall.

The list, of course, goes on: "…whoever doeth work [on the Sabbath day] shall be put to death." (Exodus 35:2). "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:17). "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son…all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die…" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

If the concept of church-state separation is to be judicially eroded, let’s not do it by half-measures. For every "Thou shalt not kill" and "Honor thy father and thy mother" there exists a litany of decrees that should turn the stomach of every decent human being.

If the Bible were indeed the words of a god, it would not be a god worthy of worship. But since the book was written by men, let’s simply accept that it reflected the prevailing attitudes of unenlightened people during a harsh period of human history.

Let’s accept the Holy Bible for the antiquated, violent, sexist, morally reprehensible work that it is.

© Copyright 2002-2013 by Magic City Morning Star

Top of Page

Charles Cutter
Latest Headlines
Democrats to the Rescue (Cue Laughter)
Bush and His Gang
An Attack on the King
Alito's Dark Vision of the World
The End of the World (Hopefully)

A Dinosaur of Education - a blog by James Fabiano.
Shobe Studios
Wysong Foods - Pets and People Too