The recent Texas state law directing school districts to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms brought to mind the church vs. state legal battles of the past. It has long concerned me that the United States Supreme Court has not given proper consideration to the argument that displays of the Ten Commandments are not in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because they preceded Judaism. That is, Judaism didn’t exist when Moses is said to have received them. There was no “church,” or “religion” involved. To put it yet another way, Judaism grew out of the Ten Commandments, not the other way around. And, of course, Christianity came much later.
I wasn’t aware until my robotic friend at AI enlightened me very recently that the Supreme Court had considered such an argument. “Yes – that argument can be made, and it has been made in various philosophical, historical, and legal contexts,” AI responded to my query about the matter. “But whether it succeeds depends very much on what one means by ‘religion’ and which framework (historical, theological, or constitutional) one is using.”
In Stone v. Graham (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Ten Commandments are “undeniably a sacred text” and that their primary purpose is religious. Thus, posting them in classrooms lacks a secular legislative purpose. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the Court held that nativity scene could be constitutional “depending on context.” But then, in 2005, in Van Orden v. Perry, the Court held that “the Commandments are part of a broader moral and legal tradition that predates and transcends organized religion.”
However, on the same day that Van Orden was decided, in McCreary County v. ACLU, the Supreme Cour reached an opposite result, ruling that a display of the Ten Commandments inside a Kentucky courthouse was unconstitutional as it was a Governmental intent to advance religion “Across these cases, the Court never resolves your core question directly,” AI pointed out. “Instead it implicitly adopts multiple, incompatible premises.” In effect, the Court has avoided declaring that the Ten Commandments are not religious, but it also avoids declaring that they are always religious.
AI went on to explain that Judaism, as an organized religion, did not exist at the time of Moses, at least in the rabbinic sense. There was no synagogue system, no codified Torah, as we know it, no rabbinic class and no formal creed. The “tribal covenantal identity” that bound people together was not a “religion” in the modern sense. For people of that time, the Ten Commandments served as a foundational moral code, a social contract, and a means of distinguishing Israelite identity from surrounding cultures. “In that sense, one can plausibly argue that the Ten Commandments preceded organized religion and that religion emerged from the covenant rather than the other way around,” AI stated, going on to say that one could argue that the Ten Commandments are “proto-ethical and proto-legal, not ‘religious’ in the modern institutional sense.”
It added that some philosophers, especially natural law theorists, have seen the Ten Commandments as “universal moral principles that do not depend on religious belief.” But it noted some commandments, such as Sabbath observance are religiously particular.
AI does not appear to recognize a source other than God for the Ten Commandment as it doesn’t mention the possibility that they came from advanced spirits, such as Imperator’s Group of 49, and not from God, per se, but my guess is that AI would still consider such a spiritualist origin as inherently religious, even if religious authorities adamantly reject such an idea.
Before Moses
According to AI, Hammurabi’s Code predates Moses by several centuries. It holds that the gods, especially Shamash, god of justice, authorized Hammurabi to establish justice and social order. However, AI continues, no one today treats Hammurabi’s Code as a “religious text.” It is classified as law, not theology. “In the ancient world, all law required divine legitimation,” AI explains. “To say ‘the gods ordained this’ was not to create a religion – it was to ground political authority.”
It seemingly follows that if Hammurabi’s Code is considered secular law without having its origin in religion, then the same can be said of the Ten Commandments, at least those not religiously particular. The religion grew around the law, not the reverse.
AI went on to mention that Confucianism is grounded in ethics, and although Confucius invoked Tian (Heaven), there was no reference to a personal deity, no revelation, no commandments, no priesthood. Confucianism was classified as a “religion” largely by Western observers. It mentions that some of the Ten Commandments, including honoring parents and prohibiting theft and violence, align perfectly with Confucian norms. “These norm are human universals, not religious inventions.”
Summing up my original argument, AI stated: “The Ten Commandments do not become constitutionally ‘religious’ simply because religion later embraced them, nor because they were expressed in theological language. They are part of the moral architecture from which Western law emerged, and acknowledging that fact is not establishment.” Although that is not the Court’s majority position, AI concluded, it is “a coherent, historically grounded constitutional argument, articulated by some of the Court’s most influential jurists.”
Seven Deadly Sins
If I had any say in the matter, I’d have the “Seven Deadly Sins” posted in the classroom, i.e., anger, lust, greed, envy, pride, gluttony, and sloth, rather than the Ten Commandments. However, since pride has such a broad meaning, including a positive one, I’d substitute arrogance or hubris for it.
Consider that anger is manifest in everything from world terrorism to simple road rage. Lust is openly celebrated on television and in the movies. Greed and envy drive our advertising industry and the economy. Arrogance is rampant among our revered athletes and entertainers, as well as our politicians and other leaders. Gluttony is totally consistent with our Epicurean ways, while sloth is ever so obvious and vigorously promoted by an excessive welfare state mentality. The substitution of fun for fulfillment in our increasingly hedonistic pursuits seems to be at the root of it all.
Unfortunately, it is likely that the humanists and ultra-progressives, considering the biblical origin and the word “sins,” would oppose them as well.
Michael Tymn is the author of The Afterlife Revealed: What Happens After We Die, Resurrecting Leonora Piper: How Science Discovered the Afterlife, Dead Men Talking: Afterlife Communication from World War I. and No One Really Dies: 25 Reasons to Believe in an Afterlife. His latest book Consciousness Beyond Death: New and Old Light on Near-Death Experiences is published by White Crow books.
Next blog post: January 26
A lot depends on when the Ten Commandments were actually written. According to the Bible, they were given to Moses during the Israelites‘ wandering in the desert. But few modern scholars take that story literally. It seems to have been invented, or at least heavily embellished, during the Babylonian Captivity, when the exiled elites of Jerusalem, stuck in Babylon, fantasized about going home. Egypt was their codeword for Babylon, and the story provided hope that God would deliver them. There is no evidence that Israelites in large numbers were ever used as slaves in Egypt, and the pyramids were not built by slave labor, but by Egyptian farmers during periods when the Nile was in flood and farming was impossible.
So when were the Ten Commandments written? Probably during the reign of King Josiah of Judah, whose high priest providentially “discovered“ the Torah while remodeling the Temple. This supposed discovery was likely a propagandistic move to shore up the regime and distinguish it from the rival nation of Israel. For instance, the story of the Israelites worshiping a golden calf seems to have been a hit at Israel for having erected gold statues of bull calves. As Google AI summarizes, “Jeroboam I, the first king of the divided Northern Kingdom of Israel, was known for establishing rival worship centers with golden calves in Dan and Bethel to prevent people from returning to Judah, making him a biblical archetype of apostasy.”
See “Who Wrote the Bible?” by Richard Eliot Friedman for more on this interpretation of Jewish history.
If Friedman is right, then the Ten Commandments don’t predate Judaism as an organized religion, but were part of a religious propaganda effort c. 640 BC.
Thanks, Michael, for that information on Jewish history. I’m surprised that AI did not mention it. However, I’ll leave it to the courts to resolve the conflict should they want to further explore the matter. Some will argue that the mere mention of God makes it “religion,” but the opposing argument is that God is part of natural law and preceded all religions.
If what I was taught in seminary back in the 1970s still stands, most biblical scholars would substantially agree with Michael Prescott’s comment. And our other Michael, the intrepid author of this blog, offers the additional speculative take that the Ten Commandments might not have come from God directly but rather mediated by angelic beings like Imperator & Co. who communicated spiritual and ethical messages through another Moses, the Rev. Stainton Moses, and also through Leonora Piper and perhaps other mediums, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Indeed, if Imperator’s most impressive communication is true–“Spirit Teachings” c/o Rev. Moses–then that’s precisely what we should expect to have happened millennia ago when those original ten commandments were given. The gist of “Spirit Teachings” is that God does not directly insert Himself into creation but works within it through angels, our deceased loved ones and other human beings on the other side with special missions in this world. While these angels can sometimes work wonders to help us, they are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, which offers at least a partial explanation for the problem of evil. Indeed, this 77-year-old clergyman finds this proposition so convincing that he has at this late date revised his conception of the Trinity to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit(s).
I read a book years ago — can’t recall the title now — which argued that passages in the Hebrew Bible (aka the Old Testament) probably reflect dimly remembered mediumistic practices. The idea was not that the particular Bible stories were true, but that they took for granted a general practice of what we would now call spirit communication.
For instance, Moses is said to enter the Tabernacle (a tent) and commune with Yahweh. This is arguably similar to the spiritualist practice of holding a seance in a dark room. The interior chamber of the Jerusalem Temple was possibly another kind of seance room, a dark, windowless space that only the High Priest could enter. It was said to be largely empty of decorations or furnishings.
Casting lots is another practice somewhat cryptically alluded to in these traditions. This could parallel the use of the i Ching, tarot cards, etc in other traditions — always intended as a way to obtain divine guidance.
It’s quite possible that the early Hebrews, like many other peoples of that era, believed that their priests or shamans could hear the “still, small voice” of God, even if ordinary folks couldn’t. The tradition of building altars on “high places” (hilltops) may reflect the idea that the holy man must separate himself from society and ascend nearer to heaven in order to commune with the deity.
Over time, as greater control was imposed on the religion’s practices, direct communion with God or spirits was judged to be socially destabilizing and therefore demonic. The nabiim (prophets, i.,e., psychically gifted people) were persecuted and sometimes massacred. “Josiah also got rid of the mediums, psychics, family idols, other idols, and disgusting gods that could be seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem.” (2 Kings 23) “While Jezebel was killing off the Lord’s prophets, Obadiah had taken a hundred prophets and hidden them in two caves, fifty in each.” (1 Kings 18)
But isolated nabiim would still crop up, e.g., prophets like Amos and Hosea, whose channeled spirit communications rebuked the authorities. And even those in power would consult mediums in a crisis, as Saul did when he visited the medium (“witch”) of Endor.
The god of the Ten Commandments is a particular kind of god, one of quite a few such local gods — a projection of human male attributes and one for whom animals were killed, burned and offered. What kind of “natural law” is such an imaginary, anthropomorphized being part of?
Of course religious myths are not without value, symbolic or otherwise, including that of the originally Jewish cult adopted by a Roman emperor, resulting in it becoming the official state religion of the “might makes right” Roman Empire and all that followed.
Speaking of myths, note the song created to justify the rise to power of Sargon of Akkad, a usurper. Sargon lived about 1,000 years before Moses (assuming Moses was an actual person) but the song includes the tale of an infant floating in a basket down a river, very similar to that part of the myth of Moses and most likely “borrowed.” (See _Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City_ by Gwendolyn Leick.)
I understand thousands of religious myths have been created over the history of humankind, some more enduring and become much more widespread than others.
Based on certain experiences I’m convinced that an underlying being of consciousness known to some as “The All” or “All That Is” exists, but I can think of no way to prove this to anyone and some might consider this a myth.
As such a being by definition includes absolutely everyone and everything, it would of course include you, me, and the founders of all religions — we would all be connected, inwardly; there could be no separate gods or goddesses, passing divine judgement on others.
Bill, as I have continually argued, God is beyond human comprehension. Both religionists and nihilists seem to believe that one has to identify and prove God before considering the evidence that consciousness survives death when it should be the other way around, i.e., consider the evidence for survival first and then consider whether there is a God. Consider the possibility that consciousness does survive but there is no God, at least the kind of God that religions believe in. God then becomes a semantical issue.
Michael:
I do not wish to see classrooms in the U.S. featuring the Ten Commandments. The religious nature of them is obvious just from the first two (note, too, how the second commandment implies or acknowledges the existence of multiple gods — clearly these “commandments” date to a very different era in human history).
Having encountered “dead” human personalities a number of times now, I have no need to consider evidence that consciousness survives death — I _know_ this. This is not the only way I know this, either, as on occasions I’ve become very aware of what I’ll call “other selves” alive in some other time and place.
I don’t believe there is any god like YHWH, Ašur, or any of the numerous others, but I could be wrong (thought forms do exist, for example) and don’t rule out the existence of massive concatenations or gestalts of consciousness that have been treated as gods.
One example I’ve personally encountered is called Nataraja (Lord of Dance — one of the many names for the Hindu Shiva).
This happened years ago when I was gathered with a small group of friends that included several who were proficient at some kind of trance communication.
It was unexpected — we hadn’t sought to communicate with this being — and unique in my experience as two different people in the room simultaneously accessed this being. It would answer our questions but the choice of words used by the two different people, although sharing the same meaning, were slightly different, illustrating a feature of what some call “channeling.”
As always, I would strive to transcend “semantical issues” if at all possible.
Although I’m aware of a variety of techniques, methods, exercises, etc., not excluding meditation and hypnosis, at times including entering a trance condition — many of which theoretically can foster a transcendent awareness or consciousness, I don’t claim to have mastered any of them.
Regarding Michael Prescott’s mention of mediumship — I have personal experience in that area, too, having taken quite a few classes some years ago. Again, I don’t claim to have mastered any form of mediumship, although I have had some impressive experiences in that area.
I would definitely expect mediumship to have been practiced for at least thousands of years (including in times well prior to the development of modern egoic consciousness) but how can anyone trust records of what may have been mediumship when they are part of religious narratives, that is, there are axes being ground?
Regardless of what so and so may or may not have accessed using what may or may not have been some form of mediumship or trance communication long ago, what and who can you access today, now, if not availing yourself of some kind of mediumship, then possibly later tonight, in your dreams?
Newton, your analysis makes sense to me. In addition to the the “angels” not being omniscient or omnipotent, we need to factor in the possible distortion that is said to come from misinterpretations by lower-level spirits in relaying words of wisdom from higher planes, as well as the distortions and biases of human interpreters. As you no-doubt know, there is a slight difference in the numbering and wording of the Commandments for the Catholic Church and those of accepted by Protestantism. I read up on the difference at one time, but I don’t remember now why the difference.
Thanks Michael, and Michael, for responding to my thoughts. I think we’re pretty much in sync in our takes on what likely lies behind much of the writing of the First Testament. In addition to revealing the crucial and constant role of angels in mediating between God and living human beings, “Spirit Teachings” blew my mind by its 19th Century anticipation of what biblical scholarship painstakingly learned in the 20th Century, learned concerning both the First and the Second Testament. The bottom line, of course, is that in both cases we are dealing with words that may be inspirational, even inspired, but are not divinely dictated. And how much have the angelic adversaries seized upon that error of literalism, of rigid and dogmatic fundamentalism, to thwart the good and the true and the beautiful?
Thanks to all for the comments. The new system does not appear to be working like the old system in notifications by email that someone has left a comment. I just discovered a few comments from several days ago, which I had not responded to. Anyway, I agree with Bill about not wanting to see the Ten Commandments in classrooms. I don’t think I suggested that in this blog. I was only trying to point out the issue of spirit teachings possibly having preceded organized religion and not necessarily coming from “God.” And, as I mentioned, I’d much prefer the Seven Deadly Sins to the Ten Commandments.
Hi. I have been following your web site for some time now. I am very much interested in the possibility of life after this present life, and possible evidence, and am especially concerned about JUSTICE working out in a future life, which of course it very often does not work out in this present earthly life.
I feel I must say something in response to this article about the Ten Commandments.
First of all, the Ten Commandments, whatever their origin, are in fact inherently religious. The first four commandments (by Protestant numbering) are about one’s duties to God. Such duties are no part of the duties of a citizen in a Democratic society, in which a person has an absolute right to adhere to any religion or no religion, to believe in any God or gods, or no God or gods.
And there are different versions of the Ten Commandments. In particular there are differences between the Protestant, the Catholic, and the Jewish versions of the Ten Commandments. In displaying the Ten Commandments there necessarily has to be a choice as to which version is displayed. If the Protestant version is displayed (which I think is usually the case) then that in effect means the government favors Protestant Christianity over Catholic Christianity or Judaism. That is wrong and violates the principle of neutrality of government in regards to religion.
https://www.learnreligions.com/different-versions-of-the-ten-commandments-250923
https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/2007/03/chart-comparing-the-ten-commandments.aspx
So for these above reasons displays of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, courthouses, or in any public government building do in fact violate the First Amendment.
And I have a personal reason for writing this. I have problems with one of the so-regarded Ten Commandments, namely the commandment to “honor your father and mother”, which, at least in the biblical text, is unconditional and makes no exceptions if one’s parents are abusive or otherwise unworthy of honor. I think that the commandment is actually wrong. In particular I think it is very insensitive and wrong to tell somebody with abusive parents that that person has a duty to honor such parents.
I think it is very unfortunate that “honor your father and mother” is one of the “top ten” commandments alleged to have come from God.
If anything I think that there should be a commandment to parents to treat their children with dignity and respect, so that they (the children) might come to treat themselves and others with dignity and respect. And another commandment to parents to earn and be worthy of the love and honor and respect of their children.
I think it is a much greater crime or “sin” for a grown-up to abuse, mistreat, or humiliate a child than it is for a child to talk back to or otherwise displease or disrespect one’s parents or elders.
And really it seems that the commandment serves and gives backing and legitimacy to narcissistic, toxic, abusive, incompetent, or just plain BAD parents, and does not provide any necessary benefit for good parents.
Any narcissistic or insecure or incompetent or controlling or just plain bad parent, when they are displeased or offended by something their child says or does, can invoke the commandment and say that an affront to one’s parents is an affront to God. This might include things a child says or does that are really wrong. This might also include things that are not wrong but offend the parents, such as leaving the parents’ religion, or marrying somebody who is not of the parents’ religion (like one of the daughters in Fiddler on the Roof), or not going into the family business, or pursuing a different career from what the parents had in mind for the child. Or bringing home less than fantastic grades on one’s school report card. Or coming out as gay or lesbian. Or just being gay or lesbian, and having been outed.
The commandment provides a cheap and easy way for any bad parent to shame one’s children in order to get their way, or to avoid dealing with any issues the parent might have, or just to have a sense of power over one’s children.
Any good parent or any parent with self-respect will NEVER want to invoke the commandment or to say or imply that an affront to one’s parents is an affront to God. A good parent would handle any offense or affront or being displeased without any need to bring in God or any alleged commandment from God, and would not unilaterally demand or insist on being honored or respected. Honor and respect are a two-way street, and a good parent will show and demonstrate these by way of example.
I would think that any good psychologist or psychotherapist or counselor would say that the first duty of an abused person is to him/herself – to do what is necessary in order to take care of him/herself – and not to an abuser, whether that abuser would be one’s parents or an acquaintance or a stranger, and not to any laid down religious rule or commandment.
This is personal for me in that I used to be a Christian and I had a very difficult father. I was not able to deal with him the way I wished I had been able to while he was alive, and my being a Christian and supposedly having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” did not help. I do not consider that to be simply unfortunate; the commandment to “honor your father and mother”, and some other passages in the Bible, were for me part of the problem.
Incidentally I am also not an atheist, for which the matter of possible life after this present life is an important reason. I consider myself to be a Deist; that means, among other things, that I do not accept any alleged revelation from God, such as the Bible or the Koran, as actually being such, and certainly not as being infallible or inerrant.
Having had a difficult father, I do not at all appreciate seeing a reminder that I am supposed to “honor” him in the name of a religion that I had been unhappy with and no longer adhere to. And I think it is wrong for a person with abusive parents to have to see a reminder to “honor” such parents, in the name of a religion that person might not adhere to, and outside a church or explicitly religious setting.
And there are political consequences. If a person is taught from childhood to be mortally afraid of challenging or questioning one’s parents (under threat of punishment, physical or otherwise, and always reminded to ALWAYS “honor your father and mother”), then it would seem obvious that that person might later very likely be afraid or at least very reluctant to question or challenge other authorities (religious, political, and otherwise) later in life. And of course the theocratic fascists, such as those in the Trump White House or those who run the state of Texas, are absolutely fine with that!
Thanks, Mike, for your comments. For the most part, I agree with you. However, one point of all this is that if there is God, then God precedes religion. Or to put it another way, religions were formed to make God better known. It might have been better to refer to God as the “Creative Force” in order to get it outside of religion and preceding religion. And, as I said, I’d much prefer the Seven Deadly Sins to the Ten Commandments. I don’t recall their origin, but they are based on morality, not religion. Of course, the nihilist then asks “whose morality?”