Ten Amendments FAQ | Ten Commandments FAQ

 


 

Ten Amendments FAQ

 

  1. How do the first Ten Amendments limit government and empower citizens?
  2. Some people think the protections guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t apply to nonreligious and atheistic citizens? Is this true?
  3. It is often said that the Constitution was designed only to protect religion from government, not to protect government from religion. Is that true?
  4. What were the founders’ personal religious beliefs?
  5. Has anyone ever taken legal steps to change the Constitution’s separation of church and state?
  6. If this isn't a Christian nation, why does all our money have 'In God We Trust' on it?
  7. Is the United States Constitution based on the Ten Commandments?
  8. If not the Ten Commandments, isn't American law based on the Golden Rule and isn't that from the Bible?
  9. How Can People Be Moral and Good if They Don’t Have Religion? 


Q: Has anyone ever taken legal steps to change the Constitution’s separation of church and state?

A: The current assaults on the constitutional separation of church and state by the religious Right are only the latest round in a longstanding battle to undo what the framers did. There have been many attempts to amend the Constitution to “correct” its omission of God. The most important of these took place during the Civil War, when a group of Protestant ministers proposed to President Abraham Lincoln that the Constitution be amended to acknowledge the governmental authority not only of God in general but of Jesus Christ specifically. The proposal would have replaced “We the People…” with “Recognizing Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, and acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land….” Lincoln cannily responded by promising to “take such action upon it as my responsibility to my Maker and our country demands.” His action, for which posterity must thank him, was to take no action at all and let the proposed amendment die. - Susan Jacoby


Q: What were the founders’ personal religious beliefs?

A: They varied widely. The religious views of the framers of the Constitution, as indicated by their own writings, ran the gamut from traditional Christianity to freethought, which included the kind of Enlightenment Deism that posited a god who set the universe in motion but subsequently took no part in the affairs of men-the “unconcerned deity” to whom Scalia refers in his McCreary opinion. The founders’ favorite word for God was “Providence.” Thomas Jefferson wrote a book during his first term as president in which he explicitly stated his belief that Jesus was a great prophet and a good man but not divine-or the son of a divinity. What the founders shared, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, was the Enlightenment conviction that if God existed, he expected humans to rely on their own reason to determine the course of human destiny; the assignment of faith to the sphere of individual conscience rather than public duty; and hostility to all ecclesiastical hierarchies. These rationalist convictions carried the day when the former revolutionaries sat down to write the Constitution. The nature of our government was determined not by the founders’ private religious beliefs but by their public actions, which separated church and state. - Susan Jacoby


Q. It is often said that the Constitution was designed only to protect religion from government, not to protect government from religion. Is that true?

A: No. The body of the Constitution, with what was regarded as its conspicuous omission of any reference to a deity as the source of governmental power, as well as its prohibition of religious requirements for public office, was designed to protect government from religious interference. The subsequent First Amendment to the Bill of Rights was written to protect religion from government interference. The result was the first secular government in the world, guaranteeing complete freedom of conscience-the right to believe, or not to believe, in any form of a deity, and to enjoy the full rights of citizenship regardless of one’s faith, or lack of faith. At the time, most state governments did in fact make Christianity-usually Protestantism-a condition for holding public office. The framers of the Constitution wanted the federal government to set a different standard by eschewing any relationship between church and state. During the next twenty-five years, most states followed the federal Constitutional model and eliminated religious tests for public office from their own constitutions. - Susan Jacoby


Q: Some people think the protections guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t apply to nonreligious and atheistic citizens? Is this true?

A: In 2005, in a dissenting opinion in a case involving displays of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses (McCreary County v. the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky), Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the Constitution permits “disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.” However, there is no Constitutional justification for such a claim. Justice Scalia’s opinion cannot be based on anything but his own religiously motivated wishes. The Constitution has nothing to say about God, gods, or any form of religious belief or nonbelief-apart from its absolute prohibition, in Article 6, of any religious test for public office and the First Amendment’s familiar declaration that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The founders deliberately omitted any mention of God from the Constitution, instead granting supreme governmental authority to “We the People.” The omission of God from the nation’s founding document was vigorously debated in state ratifying conventions, and the eighteenth-century religious Right lost that battle. - Susan Jacoby


Q: How do the first Ten Amendments limit government and empower citizens?

A: The Bill of Rights does not create rights, it recognizes certain inherent liberties and prevents the government from intruding upon them.  In all respects, the first Ten Amendments limit the ability of government to do certain things, such as: search and seize, quarter soldiers, prohibit ownership of arms, prohibit speech, etc.  Many other legal systems and constitutions have since been modeled upon this notion that individuals have liberties and dignities that cannot be infringed upon by government, except under very limited circumstances.  The Supreme Court's role in deciding when those circumstances occur is in constant flux, following the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison , which established the principle of judicial review, and an organic, living Constitution.


Q: If this isn't a Christian nation, why does all our money have 'In God We Trust' on it?

A: The religious motto found on American money, In God We Trust, if often cited as proof that the United States is a Christian nation.  Though the use of the motto does tell us something about American history,  it says nothing about the intentions of the Founding Fathers .  Their choice of a motto was "E Pluribus Unum."  It was chosen by a committee appointed on July 4, 1776, by the Continental Congress 'to prepare a device for a Seal of the United States of America.' Committee member Benjamin Franklin proposed the motto 'Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God,' but the phrase 'e pluribus unum' was chosen by the committee and officially adopted on June 20, 1782. The phrase-which was well known, having appeared for many years on the cover of the Gentleman's Magazine-is from 'Moretum,' attributed to Vergil." ( Grolier Encyclopedia , Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc., 1999) As  has been noted, it is interesting that our allegedly pious Christian Founding Fathers had an opportunity to choose a national motto with the word "God" in it and rejected it in favor of a secular one.

"E Pluribus Unum" has appeared on most U.S. coins, beginning in the late 1790s.  The motto "In God We Trust" did not appear on any U.S. coin until 1864, when "Its presence on the new coin was due largely to the increased religious sentiment during the Civil War Crisis," according to R. S. Yeoman, A Guide Book of United States Coins , 38th ed., Racine, Wisconsin: Western Publishing Co., p. 89.

The religious motto "In God We Trust"  was not printed on all U.S. money until required under the McCarthy-inspired law enacting  the motto  in the 1950s.  The courts have held, by the way, that the motto is constitutional because it is not Christian or even religious , but merely  ceremonial .   - Ed Buckner


Q: Is the United States Constitution based on the Ten Commandments?

Jefferson argued at length and at various times in his long life that our American laws derive from English common law and that common law in turn owed nothing to Christianity or to the Ten Commandments.  He explained:

" . . . we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta [1215 CE], which terminates the period of the common law...and commences that of the statute law.... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century.... Here, then, was a space of about two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.... If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. .." (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814. From Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson , Vol. XIV, Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, pp. 85-97.)


Q: If not the Ten Commandments, isn't American law based on the Golden Rule and isn't that from the Bible?

The Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or similar words, is not a Christian invention. Versions of it  do occur in the Old and New Testaments (see Matthew 7:12 for one version). But versions of it also occur in many other places, including in texts that predate the New Testament and that are not part of Judeo-Christian heritage. For example, Confucius is believed to have written, about 500 years before the start of the Common/Christian era, "Do to every man as thou would'st have him do to thee; and do not unto another what thou would'st not have done to thee" (George Seldes , The Great Quotations , The Citadel Press, 1983, p. 174). And, according to The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952, Volume 7, p. 329), The Golden Rule "is not a new rule. Lao-tzu, Confucius, Plato, and the Old Testament all taught it in positive or negative forms."

Any good anthropologist can provide you with a coherent, logical explanation of how specific moral principles have evolved in specific cultures.  And any competent anthropologist will assure you that moral ideas are specific to cultures-that what is considered abhorrent in one culture may be admired in another. There is really no good reason to believe that any moral standard is absolute or that any ethical principle is not a product of cultural evolution. The religious debaters who like to claim a God-given absolute moral foundation for morality cannot escape the fact that moral ideas change over time and from one group to another within the doctrines of any religion.

Christians in the Southern United States 150 years ago, including leading preachers, believed-with plenty of Biblical support for their ideas-that human slavery was not only acceptable but explicitly ordained by God. Few Christians today would attempt to defend the notion, though God does not seem to have issued any corrected Scriptures in the meantime. It is hard to believe that an omniscient God would not have foreseen how ambiguous his commandments are; believing that it is all up to us human beings to determine what is right, and to do it, is much easier to accept.

Conscience, the critical idea on which popular Christian apologist C. S. Lewis hung his own belief (in Mere Christianity, New York: Macmillan Paperback edition, 1969; see especially Book I, "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe," pp. 17-39), is much more reasonably understood as the product of cultural evolution, biology, and education. The Aztec who could, in good conscience, sacrifice a virgin to the gods  or the early nineteenth century Christian Southerner who could, also in good conscience, justify owning his fellow human beings both demonstrate that consciences are not divine products.   -- Ed Buckner

 

Q: How Can People Be Moral and Good if They Don’t Have Religion? 

Dwight Eisenhower once said "People need religion—and I don’t care what kind." He was expressing a common insight: that people’s deeply-held moral beliefs shape their behaviors and make them better, more ethical beings. Eisenhower was right that our beliefs about the nature of good and evil matter. But equating "morality" with "religion" is problematic, at best. The people who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center on 9-11 were profoundly religious. Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff was conspicuously pious, and indicted former Majority Leader Tom DeLay frequently claimed divine inspiration for his policy preferences. Domestic policy advisor Claude Allen was a self-proclaimed Christian conservative and was arrested for felony shoplifting. We all know less prominent people who are or claim to be religious, whose behavior is neither moral nor good—and we all know wonderful, highly moral people who are not religious in any conventional sense.

Unfortunately, religion is increasingly being used as a political tool by those who would divide us as Americans, rather than as a source of personal moral guidance. We hear a great deal about "people of faith," (the good guys) who are assumed to be united against the forces of "secularism," (the bad guys) but we hear little or nothing about what those terms really mean. Whose faith is being used as a standard? What about those whose religions are works-based, rather than "faith-based"? (Equating faith with religion is a very Protestant notion; Judaism, Buddhism, even Catholicism are considered works-based religions.) Even within Protestant Christianity, denominations differ dramatically on many moral issues: divorce, homosexuality, the death penalty, our obligations to the poor, and the proper relationship between religion and government, to name just a few.

The Founders’ views of religion also varied dramatically, but they were able to identify and codify moral principles on which to base the laws of the new nation they were creating. If we look at the values that infuse the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights—values that are absolutely central to what it means to be American—we see a profoundly moral vision that is quite independent of sectarian religious belief.

  • Americans believe in justice and civil liberties—in equal treatment and fair play for all citizens, whether or not we agree with them or like them or approve of their life choices.
  • We believe that no one is above the law—and that includes those who run our government.
  • We believe that dissent can be the highest form of patriotism. Those who care about America enough to speak out against policies they believe to be wrong or corrupt are not only exercising their rights as citizens, they are discharging their civic responsibilities.
  • We believe that playing to the worst of our fears and prejudices, using "wedge issues" to marginalize gays, or blacks, or "east coast liberals" (a time-honored code word for Jews) in the pursuit of political advantage is both un-American and immoral.
  • We believe, as Garry Wills has written, in "critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences."
  • We believe, to use the language of the nation’s Founders, in "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" (even European mankind).
  • We believe in the true heartland of this country, where people struggle to provide for their families, dig deep into their pockets to help the less fortunate, and value goodwill and loving kindness.
  • We believe that self-righteousness is the enemy of righteousness.
  • We really do believe that the way you play the game is more important, in the end, than whether you win or lose. We really do believe that the ends don’t justify the means.

You don’t have to be "religious" to believe in these profoundly moral principles, or to be guided by them. You don’t even have to be American.    -- Sheila Suess Kennedy 

 


 

Ten Commandments FAQ

 

What are the “Ten Commandments?

Hold on. Why don’t those sound familiar? I meant what are the real Ten Commandments—the ones everyone knows?

So, there are three different versions? How did that happen?

I’m not convinced. Rules about boiling goats would look ridiculous in court houses, schools and post offices!

Are you saying that the nice ones weren’t written down?

Why not include them all, then? Christians believe that whatever comes from the mouth of God is wise and just.

What do you mean “plagiarized”? I haven’t heard anything about killing children or selling daughters. Are you making them up or using some weird translation? Are these in the King James Version? The Bible says God gave them to Moses.

But wouldn’t you agree that even if the Ten Commandments—I mean the nice ones--resemble other law codes, they are the pinnacles of moral perfection. After all, they come from our God, not some ancient mythical deity?

I mean, isn’t it true that these commandments are the first laws that tell human beings what they need to do to gain eternal life—that and believing in Jesus.

I’m talking about real Christianity, not Catholics and those others you mention. Wouldn’t you say that these laws are timeless and true?

Back to Top

 


Q: What are the “Ten Commandments?

A: The Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) contains lots of rules which developed over a millennium. Most of these were borrowed from earlier Near Eastern law codes, known to the Hebrews through cultural contact with Egypt and Babylonian civilization. Because of the complexity, redundancy, and inconsistency of these laws, early Judaism singled out a number of “statements”— called Aseret ha-Dvarîm, “the ten injunctions”— as a kind of summary. In the Greek translation of the Bible, used by Christians, the term employed is dekalogoi or “the ten words.”

There is no place in the Bible where the statements are called “commandments.” The phrase originates with God (in Exodus 34.11) “commanding” Moses to write them down.

There is only one place in the Bible where the number ten is given. In the single passage where the “ten words” are referred to (Exodus 34.28-29), the reference is to God “replacing” the original commandments, following Moses’ smashing the stone tablets ( in Exodus 32.19).

Literally, the Ten Commandments are the following:

I. Do not make deals with the Hivites, or other strange people: Demolish their altars.
II. Don’t marry their daughters or you’ll be encouraged to accept their gods. (34.11-16).
III. Don’t make gods out of cast metal (the way they do): 34.17
IV. Observe the feast of unleavened bread in the month of Abib to commemorate when you were taken out of Egypt (34.18)
V. Don’t come before me empty-handed, because the first born cattle, sheep, and even your firstborn sons belong to me. (34.19-20)
VI. Keep the seventh day for rest, even during harvest and ploughing time. Whoever works on the sabbath will be put to death (34.21; 35.2)
VII. Your males must keep the feast of “weeks” (Shavuot or Pentecost, originally a harvest festival) as a thanksgiving for God’s driving the inhabitants out of Canaan (Exodus 34.22-34)
VIII. Don’t offer leavened bread with the Passover lamb (34.25)
IX. Give God the best portion when you sacrifice. (34.26)
X. Don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk (34.26)


Q: Hold on. Why don’t those sound familiar? I meant what are the real Ten Commandments—the ones everyone knows?

A: These are the real ten commandments. You may mean where are the “moral” rules against stealing, killing and coveting? In Exodus 34.1, God commands Moses to cut two stone tablets and says he will “write on them the same words he wrote on the ones you broke into pieces.” Of course, they are not the same words; they are different words, with only echoes of the earler account (Exodus 20; and a later, slightly different version, Deuteronomy 5.6-21).


Q: So, there are three different versions? How did that happen?

A: Of these particular rules, yes. The discrepancy comes from disagreements, probably arising fairly early in the history of Israelite priesthood, about what Moses had actually received. By the time the variations were written down in the sixth century BCE, and in order to give them the weight they needed to be effective, all of the rules were attributed the “Sinai tradition,” meaning simply that they were associated with Moses’ getting the laws directly from God. The model for this legend among the Hebrews was probably the Babylonian king Hammurabi getting his laws from the great god, Shamash. The famous basalt stele depicting this scene dates from 1800 BCE, at least a millennium before the Hebrew code, and is displayed in the Louvre. The laws themselves are considerably older than that.

To underscore the critical importance of sacrifice, Passover, and sabbath rules among the people, the story emerged that Moses destroyed the first law tablets and preserved the second. But the literary and historical problems are apparent: Did God forget what he said the first time? Did Moses? And who would know what the demolished (and far more famous) tablets contained, since only the second were enshrined as “tokens” in the Ark (Exodus 40.20). The conflicting Exodus accounts of the commandments is really an editorial hodgepodge of attempts, carried out over a long period of time, to situate all of the Hebrew legal and ritual traditions in the revelations given to Moses.

All of the rules ascribed to God in the Book of Exodus were cult rules which were intended to govern the ritual behavior of Hebrew males. Did you ever wonder why all of the commandments — for example against “coveting” — are addressed to the men?


Q: I’m not convinced. Rules about boiling goats would look ridiculous in court houses, schools and post offices!

A: Well, there are others to choose from. Much nicer are the words God “spoke” to Moses on Sinai in Exodus 20.1-17. But, as I said, there is no mention of “ten commandments” there, and, if you add them up, there are thirteen separate injunctions – an unlucky number. Furthermore, they continue in verse 22 and run on into the so-called Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21.1-33).


Q: Are you saying that the nice ones weren’t written down?

A: No, I’m saying that the Bible is unclear about what was written down and how it was written. Exodus 24 says that “Moses wrote down all that the Lord had told [us],” which can only mean the whole content of Exodus 20 and 21, and then “read it aloud for all the people to hear.” It isn’t clear what language he might have written them in, since biblical Hebrew hadn’t been invented yet, and almost no one could have read the rules if it had. But the scribes who were writing the story in the sixth century BCE doubtless assumed that Moses could write because that’s the story they’d heard, and because by their time written laws were more authoritative than oral tradition. To underscore the importance of these laws coming directly from God, the author of Exodus 24.12-13 then presents God as duplicating Moses’ effort by “inscribing” the commandments on tablets of stone “so that you may teach them.” Again, no reference to the magical number ten. There seem to have been many more. And this is the set Moses destroyed. Many scholars believe that the story of Moses’ fury was a fiction designed to explain to later generations what happened to the “originals.”


Q: Why not include them all, then? Christians believe that whatever comes from the mouth of God is wise and just.

A: In general, in dealing with ancient texts, I like the idea that more is better. But not so fast. The humanization and cherrypicking of “commandments” began in rabinnical and early Christian times. No one would argue that rules against killing, stealing, perhaps even trespass and adultery, and in favor of caring for aged parents aren’t useful in a society. But the unabridged version of the commandments includes the following:

o When you buy a Hebrew slave he will be yours for six years
o A female slave may not go free as a male slave may (after six years)
o Whoever strikes, or insults, mother or father shall be put to death.
o Whenever hurt is done, you shall give eye for eye, tooth for tooth.
o When a man rapes a virgin, he will pay the bride price for her, and if the father does not accept it (in kind), the seducer will pay the equivalent to the girl’s father in silver.
o You will kill anyone who is a witch.
o You shall give me your first born sons.
o Whoever sacrifices to any god but me will be put to death. (Exodus 21)

I think you would agree that these punishments (and cases) are pretty severe and pretty obscure. It might be better to talk about which of God’s commandments “survived” the long process of theological selection and interpretation; but remember, it isn’t God doing the selecting—it’s rabbis and scholars.

As a matter of fact, the ones you seem to know best (as well as the bloodthirsty ones) are borrowed from other civilizations anyway. So, it would be wrong to blame the Hebrew authors for being unusually vicious in their apportioning of punishment for violating tribal taboos. The Hebrews didn’t make them up—they plagiarized them.


Q: What do you mean “plagiarized”? I haven’t heard anything about killing children or selling daughters. Are you making them up or using some weird translation? Are these in the King James Version? The Bible says God gave them to Moses.

A: That’s actually several questions. Most reputable biblical scholars consider Moses, at best, a composite figure who symbolizes the consolidation of Hebrew tribes under an emerging law code. While we can’t be certain whether the Hebrew scribes borrowed directly or copied from a fluid oral tradition, there were many legal and religious codes to copy from. The Egyptian Book of the Dead (Reu nu pert em hru) for example, which was already ancient during the Theban period (1500 BCE in the case of the famous Ani papyrus), already contains the following:

I have committed no evil….
I have not dishonored father and mother.

I have brought about no evil.
I have not scorned any god. [I have honored all the gods]
I have not defrauded the poor of their property.
I have not done what the gods abominate.
I have not cause harm to be done to a servant by his master.
I have caused no man to hunger.
I have made no one weep.
I have not killed.

I have not committed adultery [fornicated]
I have not stolen land.
I have not encroached on my neighbor’s property. (Ch. 125)

There are similar parallels between the biblical injunctions and the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 2130 BCE) and between the Code of Hammurabi and the Book of the Covenant, the elaboration of the commandments, given in Exodus chapter 21.


Q: But wouldn’t you agree that even if the Ten Commandments—I mean the nice ones--resemble other law codes, they are the pinnacles of moral perfection. After all, they come from our God, not some ancient mythical deity?

A: First, when you say “our God,” you are doing the same thing the ancient Hebrews would have done: you are pitting your God against the gods of other people, whose gods were equally real—even to the Hebrews! They believed their God was “lord of lords,” not the only God: monotheism arrives later and that’s why the “first commandment” is so insistent on the exclusive worship of Yahweh. And why God calls himself “jealous,” just like a lover can be jealous of other lovers—not because they don’t exist but because they do. Technically, scholars call the ancient Israelites “henotheists” rather than “monotheists”: they believed their god was the greatest of gods, but not the only god (Exod. 18.11). And I’m not sure what you mean by “the pinnacle of moral perfection.”


Q: I mean, isn’t it true that these commandments are the first laws that tell human beings what they need to do to gain eternal life—that and believing in Jesus.

A: There is nothing in these rules about eternal life and certainly nothing about Jesus. The early Christians paid almost no attention to them at all; by the nineties of the first century, one of the core commandments had been rescinded, that of keeping the Jewish sabbath in exchange for celebrating the day of the resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week. The book of the covenant (Exod. 21) didn’t last even that long in Christian circles—and in the story of Jesus acquitting the “adulterous woman,” he’s clearly violating Leviticus 20.10. No theological system in the early church derives from the Commandments, which was obsessed with spelling out its doctrine of salvation in terms of Jesus as the end or fulfillment (τελος) of the law. So let me be blunt: the Ten Commandments only become famous in Christianity after the sixteenth century, primarily among Calvinists whose ideas of Christian commonwealth and law were derived more from the Old Testament than from the new. In Catholicism and the Orthodox churches, the “Ten Commandments” have never been central.


Q: I’m talking about real Christianity, not Catholics and those others you mention. Wouldn’t you say that these laws are timeless and true?

A: I think that’s exactly where we differ. First, the rules you want to come back to—the verses you are calling the Ten Commandments, are not timeless. No laws are. They weren’t even timeless for the Jews, and certainly not for the Christians. Anyone who applied Exodus 21.17 (killing a son who insults his father) today would go to prison, yet no distinction is made between the speaker of that commandment (God) and the speaker in Exodus 20.13 who forbids murder. So, along with most scholars, I think these rules belong to the early days of Israelite political and religious consolidation—sometime after the year 900—and reflect the social context of that era. I also think that you’re mistaken to talk about these rules as “moral” or “true.” The purpose of law is not to be true or moral but to enforce certain kinds of behavior, and for particular reasons. These laws regulate slavery, distinguish between murder and killing, enforce certain religious practices, control diet, and establish Yahweh as the god of the nation. By the same token, they approve of slavery, condone rape, recommend hideous punishments for minor transgressions, encourage vindictiveness (an eye for an eye) and payback, define adultery and theft as sins against a man’s right to own chattel. Compared to Greek and Roman ethics, from roughly the same period, the Hebrew laws are morally vacuous. They belong to a god who reigned (not without challengers) 3000 years ago and are not original even to that god. They are of immense historical interest in helping us to understand how we have progressed morally and ethically since that god reigned, but as “rules” they are right where they belong—between the covers of an ancient book and not enshrined in the public square.